CA Bill Would Mandate Teaching of LGBT Contributions (Davis, Lincoln: law, wealthy)

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

What might be better would be mandating the kids be taught about the history of gender/sexual orientation discrimination in this country. Fortunately kids now have a much more enlightened view on this than their elders.

yes, they do and I think we elders have a much more enlightened view as well. Teaching the way you are suggesting via science classes would certainly be more acceptable than just teaching kids about who contributed and what their private life was all about or whatever.

Nita

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by nmnita

Teaching the way you are suggesting via science classes would certainly be more acceptable than just teaching kids about who contributed and what their private life was all about or whatever.

Nita

Hear, hear! Reps for that!

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by BayDude

You've probably never heard of the separation of church and state clause of the constitution.

I haven't, because it isn't in the constitution.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Bill of rights 1st ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech". This keeps the state from creating a universal religious doctrine, but doesn't keep religious entities from influencing the state. No matter how much people want to erase it, the fact is, this country was founded upon religious principals and the freedom of religion was of paramount importance to the founders.

As for teaching the history of homosexuality... leave it to the radical SF mind molders who want to indoctrinate as many children as possible to their twisted view of what is important. Just more of the same things that have made California the $h1Thole of the US. Makes perfect sense when you consider that it's the obession with said hole which seems to rule their lives anyway.

[CAVA1990]

I'm a bigger believer in the freedom from religion.

[CAVA1990]

Here are my sentiments on the subject of church and state:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;
that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;
that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,
that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,
that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;
that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;
that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;
and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

I think Mr. Jefferson said it pretty well.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

My point is that if they are going to add something to the curriculum, or mandate something new, perhaps they should instead focus on math and science.

I agree that focusing on math and science would be important.

However, I don't believe that this has to be an "either/or" thing.

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by Don9

Our country is Christian based and always has been.

Not true. The founding fathers were deists.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by Radical347

It's not the same coin. Creationism is a belief, which has nothing to do with learning about contributions that people make to society.

It is the same coin. Both agendas involve the imposition of a belief to promote a cause.

In the first case, the belief is that Creationism needs to be taught alongside of evolution as a sort of alternative explanation for biological diversity.

In the second case, the belief is that the contributions of LGBT persons cannot stand on their own merits and need a kind of historical Affirmative Action program to advance their importance as a favored class.

Anyone is free to disagree with either or both of these beliefs.

[Vascodagama]

Originally Posted by wrcousert

Not true. The founding fathers were deists.

That's not what history tells us

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

It is the same coin. Both agendas involve the imposition of a belief to promote a cause.

In the first case, the belief is that Creationism needs to be taught alongside of evolution as a sort of alternative explanation for biological diversity.

In the second case, the belief is that the contributions of LGBT persons cannot stand on their own merits and need a kind of historical Affirmative Action program to advance their importance as a favored class.

Anyone is free to disagree with either or both of these beliefs.

That's still too much of a stretch. Creationism/evolution has nothing to do with LGBT people. You can find similarities between just about anything that's taught, but that won't make it "two sides of the same coin."