Guess what week this is? It’s “No Name-Calling Week,” brought to you by GLSEN (the Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network, or more accurately, the Gay & Lesbian Sexual Education Network) and Barnes & Noble! They describe it as “an annual week of educational activities aimed at ending name-calling of all kinds and providing schools with the tools and inspiration to launch an on-going dialogue about ways to eliminate bullying in their communities.” According to Laurie Higgins, of the Illinois Family Institute however, they’re exploiting bullying and suicide to further the radical goals of gay activism to deconstruct sexual ethics in our society:
Although, homosexual activists and their “allies” are inveterate propagandists, they aren’t stupid. They know they can’t come straight out and say, “Our learning objective is eradicate the belief that homosexual acts are immoral or to humiliate conservative kids into silence.” So, instead they exploit bullying and suicide to achieve that goal without ever telling taxpayers what moral mischief they’re up to.
Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s “Safe Schools” Czar, may have his department on the chopping block as the Federal Government looks to cut down on unnecessary spending. According to CNSNews.com:
A draft report by the president’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform calls for, among other items, eliminating a division of the Education Department run by one of the most controversial appointees in the Obama administration: Kevin Jennings, the safe schools czar.
The draft report, which will be finalized by Dec. 1 if 14 of the 18 members agree, calls for eliminating the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, which would save taxpayers an estimated $1.8 billion.
The intentions of Jennings, who ran and helped found the radical gay activist group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), have been in question since a troubling episode he himself recounted surfaced involving his advice to a 15 year old student when he was a teacher in Massachusetts. CNSNews recounts the story below:
In a widely circulated 2000 speech, Jennings recalled a 15-year-old teenager named Brewster. “And I said, ‘Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?’” Jennings said of the 1988 incident. “And he said, ‘Well, I’m tired.’ And I said, ‘Well, we all are tired and we all got to school today. And he said, ‘Well I was out late last night.’”
“And I said, ‘What were you doing out late on a school night.’ And he said, ‘Well, I was in Boston,’” Jennings recalled. “Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’”
“He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well, I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn’t know what to say,” Jennings added.
“Knew I should say something quickly, so I finally said, my best friend had just died of AIDS the week before. I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’ He said to me something I will never forget. He said, ‘Why should I, my life isn’t worth saving anyway,’” Jennings said.
More on this episode is recounted in the video below:
Mr. Jennings is what I’ve come to term a “false physician,” seeking to impart a false identity to the troubled youth that are entrusted to him. The wounds are real, and the confusion is real (as was clearly evident in the case of this 15 year old). Yet, rather than leading these confused youth into their God-given identities as young men, and healing their wounds by cutting off these gates of Hell in their lives (in this case, anonymous sex with older men) with compassion, Jennings’ approach is to compound the problem permanently by acting like these illegal acts can be made “safer.”
With a radical gay activist like Jennings running the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, the ultimate goals and agenda of the office should be all too clear to the objective observer. The 1.8 Billion Dollars saved by its elimination will be welcomed.
Editor’s Note: Published on TownHall.com on October 25th, 2010.
This past Wednesday, October 20, millions of Americans wore purple to show their support for GLBT youth in what has now been dubbed “Spirit Day.” Helping to spread the word was Facebook, which recently announced its determination to work against cyber bullying with the help of a number of prominent gay activist organizations.
This is surely an opportune time to listen, learn, and act. How many more young lives must be lost before we take a stand? The question is, Are we taking the right stand? Put another way, Is it possible to be caring, compassionate, and concerned while choosing not to wear purple and join the Spirit Day bandwagon?
Statistics tell us that between four and five thousand teenagers commit suicide each year in America. This works out to between 80 and 100 youngsters taking their lives every week, an absolutely jarring number. Why aren’t we hearing about the rest of these stories?
By all means, we should know about the kids who took their lives over gay-related issues, but why is it only deemed newsworthy when LGBT kids cut their precious lives short? What about kids who were bullied for other reasons, ultimately killing themselves? Don’t their stories merit attention as well? Isn’t the life of a straight teenager just as valuable as the life of a gay teenager?
But there’s something else that is amiss in the current calls to reduce or eradicate the bullying of kids who are gay (or, are perceived to be gay), and it is this: Our message should be “Bullying is bad” rather than “Gay is good.” In other words, our schools do not need to nurture homosexuality (or transgenderism); they need to discourage bullying and cruelty.
We know that kids are picked on when they are perceived to be weak or different, often because of appearance. Some of you remember being cruelly taunted because you were overweight as a kid, and such taunting of fat children continues to this day. Should we then design an “Obesity is good” curriculum? Surely, first lady Michelle Obama would demur.
Some kids are bullied because they have ADHD and struggle to fit in socially. Others are harassed because of a physical defect or abnormality. Others suffer because they are exceptionally smart, making their peers jealous. In each case, the solution is the same: We must teach our children that bullying is always wrong, and there must be penalties for wrong behavior.
The focus should not be on obesity or ADHD or a physical abnormality. The focus should be on discouraging wrong behavior – how would you feel if someone treated you like that? – and on teaching our children that every kid is special, also addressing the insecurities and struggles of the bullies.
When it comes, however, to the mistreatment of kids who identify as gay (or are perceived to be gay), it is different. We must teach that gay is OK. We must encourage preteens in middle school to discover their true sexual orientation, providing Gay Straight Alliances where they can “come out” to their peers without parental notification. We must even allow a boy who identifies as transgender to come to school wearing a dress, giving him access to the girls’ bathroom and locker room. (This is official school policy in San Francisco.)
Yes, if we want to stop the spate of gay-related suicides, this is the action we must take – or is it? The truth be told, not only have some groups politicized the deaths of these young people, they are also sending the wrong message. That is to say, if it is wrong to bully gay kids because gay is OK, what if gay is not OK? Is bullying of gays no longer wrong?
Gay activist educators should also ask themselves if, by encouraging kids to “come out” at earlier and earlier ages, they are adding to the social confusion of young people, perhaps even leading to more mistreatment at the hands of their schoolmates. We have even missed the main point of the tragic suicide of Rutgers freshman Tyler Clementi, namely that cyber-invasion of privacy is nothing less than criminal. (Rutgers, it should be noted, is well-known as a gay-friendly campus.)
To be sure, this is a teachable moment in America, but we are teaching the wrong lessons, also focusing on one bullied group to the neglect of the rest. So, rather than making our message “Gay is good,” let’s make our message “Bullying is bad.” And rather than launching a crusade against those who do not want to promote homosexuality in our schools (or, wear purple on Spirit Day), let’s join together to fight against cruelty and hatred, determining to treat all people with kindness and respect, thereby modeling this behavior for our children. Can anyone call this a bigoted proposal?
A new bill has been introduced in Congress that seeks to prevent bullying in public schools based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. According to the LGBT magazine Metro Weekly:
Citing “relentless harassment and discrimination” and “life-threatening violence” faced by students “based on their sexual orientation,” U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) today introduced the Student Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit such discrimination, as well as that based on gender identity, in public schools in the United States.
The bill would require that no student in public schools be “excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” based on the student’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill also would prohibit harassment based on either characteristic.
The bill protects LGBT allies as well, prohibiting discrimination based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of the people with whom a student associates.
Similar policies have already been enacted around the country at the local level. In 2008, when the Charlotte Mecklenburg School District was proposing their own LGBT-focused anti-bullying policy, Dr. Brown warned of the negative consequences that would inevitably result from enacting such policies, speaking at a school board meeting and writing an editorial for the Charlotte Observer. The editorial can be found below… the points made are all the more important as this legislation is being proposed on a national level.
EDITORIAL FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE CMS ANTI-BULLYING POLICY
Michael L. Brown, Ph.D.
Director, Coalition of Conscience
Has the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board opened the door to homosexual indoctrination in our classrooms with its new anti-bullying policy? The Observer (March 13th) is convinced this is not the case, stating, “The policy doesn’t tell students what to believe, it tells them how to behave.” A letter to the editor (March 14th) is stronger, arguing that it is only “religious fanatics” who would connect the anti-bullying policy with an alleged homosexual agenda.
To the contrary, anti-bullying policies are largely the brainchild of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, whose mission is to assure that all students are “valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.” And it is these very categories, namely “sexual orientation” and “gender identity/expression,” that were added to the new CMS policy. Not coincidentally, one of the agenda items at the November 3, 2007 gathering of gay activists at Duke University Law School was to see these same categories added into the statewide anti-bullying policy. Similar examples could be multiplied almost ad infinitum.
Still, it would be fair to ask, “What’s so bad about this? The goal is to reduce bullying in our schools, and gays and lesbians are commonly targeted.” Certainly, none of us want to see kids picked on and bullied, but the new policy goes one step further. It “directs the Superintendent to establish training and other programs to enforce this policy . . . as well as to foster an environment of understanding and respect for all individuals.”
In other words, with little or no room granted for moral or religious disagreement, training will be introduced to sensitize teachers, administrators, and students to homosexual practice along with issues of gender identity/expression, the latter category often referring to GID (Gender Identity Disorder), which is recognized as pathological behavior by psychologists and psychiatrists. Now this disorder is codified as an acceptable behavior in the new anti-bullying policy. So 17 year-old John, who in his genetics and body is a boy, can decide that he is “Jane” and come to school wearing a dress, and students will be taught to “respect” his cross-dressing behavior.
Indeed, indoctrination such as this is already written into the elementary school curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland, and the GLSEN Lunchbox provides educators across the nation with elementary school lessons such as: “Getting in Touch with Your Inner Trannie” (meaning, transgender identity) and “Deconstructing Definitions of Family,” while the “Terminology Game Cards” activity quizzes students and teachers on terms such as: Transsexual, Cross Dresser, Genderqueer, and Sexual Reassignment Surgery, among many others. This is what we can expect to see in our CMS schools.
And perhaps we shall soon see a “gender-bender,” cross-dressing day (as happened in Iowa schools last November, with the help of GLSEN), or a girl running for prom king in her high school (as happened in Fresno last April), or a bill like Califiornia’s SB 777, which, according to attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, “redefines a student’s sex as his or her ‘gender identity,’ relying upon a student’s feelings about whether the student is male or female rather than his or her biological sex,”, opening up a Pandora’s box of potential problems.
One need not be prescient to see what’s coming. One need only look back and look around. We have been forewarned.
Liberty Counsel is asking youth around the nation to participate in the annual Day of Purity on February 14th. According to their website:
The Day of Purity is a day when youth can make a public demonstration of their commitment to remain secularly pure, in mind and actions. Today’s culture encourages youth to become sexually active at a young age and to experiment with sexual preferences. The Day of Purity offers those who strive for sexual purity an opportunity to stand together in opposition to a culture of moral decline. When you stand up for sexual purity you send a message to parents, churches, communities, legislators, and the media that you want a better world. Now is the time to let your voices be heard. Be a part of the “counter-culture” – – be politically incorrect. It’s time for a change. You can make a difference.
In part of an answer to the question “Why a Day of Purity?”, Liberty Counsel had this to say:
“The fear of the religious right is that the schools of today will be the governments of tomorrow. And you know, they are right. If we do our jobs right, we’re going to raise a generation of kids who don’t believe the claims of the religious right.”
–1999 GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network)
One freshman health text told students that “Testing your ability to function sexually and give pleasure to another person may be less threatening in your early teens with people of your own sex. . . . You may come to the conclusion that growing up means rejecting the values of your parents.” (emphasis added). A school survey in another district asked students what “caused” their heterosexuality, and whether they were heterosexual because they “feared” the same sex. PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) tells young students that “one or two sexual experiences with someone of the same sex may not mean you’re gay. . . . Your school years are a time of figuring out what works for you, and crushes and experimentation are often part of that.” In fact, the push to experiment at a young age has led to a nationwide phenomena among teen girls known as “bisexual chic” – declaring themselves bisexual for attention and because it’s cool. Experimenting with sexuality may be seen as “cool” but what’s not cool, and in fact, not even discussed, are the devastating consequences of sexual activity outside of marriage.
All questions regarding the positive and negative attributes of the so-called “religious right” aside, it is clear from what GLSEN and PFLAG are trying to accomplish, that their effort to keep youth with same-sex attraction safe from bullying has ventured into territory that they have do not have the moral authority to tackle. We pray that the Day of Purity and other attempts to show the world that purity is beautiful and valuable succeed in their attempts to do so.
A recent Zogby Poll asked people their thoughts on teaching evolution in schools, below are the results of some key questions:
4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?
6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?
Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the
scientific evidence that supports it.
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
Whether or not you believe macro-evolution occurred and was the driving force in bringing about man, there is no intellectually responsible reason for withholding scientifically valid data regarding such an important question. The American public understands this, why doesn’t the teaching establishment? Darwin was right… “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”