NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd have to agree with the business teacher, it's great that the schools are addessing intolerance and discrimination, and actually trying to provide a safe place for all students, but to make it an order that you HAVE to display something in your class that has such poltical/religious overtones is a bit much IMO. Thoughts?

Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, "This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.

The high school's Gay-Straight Alliance designed the poster, which includes pink triangles and other symbols of gay pride. In December the school board approved a policy requiring all district teachers to hang the posters in their classrooms.

District officials said the poster is an effort to comply with state laws requiring schools to ensure students' safety and curb discrimination and harassment. They say that too often teachers do not reprimand students who use derogatory slurs or refer to homosexuality in a negative way.

"This is not about religion, sex, or a belief system,'' said district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the poster policy. "This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Teachers who refused to display the posters, which were distributed Monday, could not be reached for comment.

The school district has been embroiled in controversy over homosexuality in the past.

In 1997, a parents group at the high school demanded that a gay teacher be fired after she came out to her class. In 2002, high school English teacher Karl Debro settled a lawsuit with the district for $1 million after he was disciplined for giving a lecture on racism and homophobia. A judge declared unconstitutional a district policy banning "controversial issues" from the classroom without a principal's approval.

Art teacher Tom Laughlin, who is gay and who oversaw the poster's design by students in the Gay-Straight Alliance, said he was surprised by the level of intolerance for homosexuality that he perceived when he started teaching at the high school five years ago. He said he recognized that it was critical when a student called him a "fag."

"There was a real need to do this," he said. "A lot of students didn't know about gay people in general."

Efforts to change the district's culture with a no-tolerance approach to teasing and harassment of gay students and employees began in 2003 with the hiring of Lim. In addition to the poster policy, gay students have toured the district's schools speaking to teachers about the harassment they've encountered.

For the past two years, teachers have been required to attend annual three-hour sessions addressing the problems faced by gay and lesbian students in school and how to deal with students' homophobic comments.

This year's session was held Monday, during which the posters were distributed to district teachers.

San Leandro High computer science teacher Rick Styner put two of the posters up in his classroom, one by the entryway so it's the first thing students see upon entering the room.

"I'm glad that it gets out there instead of being hidden away like a secret,'' Styner said of any intolerance of homosexuality at the school. "As teachers, we have to address these things. Students start to feel unsafe in the classroom."

Another teacher at the high school -- who was not one of the five Furtado referred to -- said he did not intend to display the poster.

Business teacher Robert Volpa said he was out of town Monday and did not attend the training session and had not heard about the poster. He said, however, he would not put it up in his classroom even though he agrees with the message.

"I think it's outstanding. Any hate language is not permissible," he said. But he added, "I have a problem with the district mandating anything that could be political."

Furtado said she is confident that every teacher eventually will comply with the district mandate. She said she intends to work with those teachers who have refused to ensure they comply with the order.

"We work in a public school," she said. "I have no wish to change anyone's personal belief, but we want all kids to feel safe. That's where we have common ground."

Lim said she had not heard from any of the other schools in the district about whether teachers were refusing to display the posters.

One student at the high school said she hopes the posters will make gay students more comfortable with being honest about their sexuality.

Senior Susannah Keith, 17, said she felt isolated in the school district for years because she felt she could not approach her teachers or other students about being gay.

"It made me feel good to see them," she said of the posters. "It reminds you that gay and lesbian people are everywhere, so watch what you say and what you do and maybe change your attitude."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/25/GAYFLAP.TMP

So a teacher gets disciplined for now displaying a rainbow banner, but nothing has heppened to this asshole teacher? Life just amazes me sometimes...

Broncos fan not welcome in school
By Associated Press
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - Updated: 06:26 AM EST

E-mail article View text version View most popular
BEAVER FALLS, Pa. — A 17-year-old high school student said he was humiliated when a teacher made him sit on the floor during a midterm exam in his ethnicity class — for wearing a Denver Broncos jersey.

The teacher, John Kelly, forced Joshua Vannoy to sit on the floor and take the test Friday — two days before the Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Broncos, 34-17, in the AFC Championship Game. Kelly also made other students throw crumpled up paper at Vannoy, whom he called a “stinking Denver fan,” Vannoy told The Associated Press yesterday.

Kelly said Vannoy, a junior at Beaver Area Senior High School, just didn’t get the joke.

“If he felt uncomfortable, then that’s a lesson; that’s what (the class) is designed to do,” Kelly told The Denver Post. “It was silly fun. I can’t believe he was upset.”

Vannoy was wearing a No. 7 Broncos jersey on Friday, because he is a fan of John Elway, the Broncos’ retired Hall of Fame QB.

Vannoy said he was so unnerved he left at least 20 questions blank on the 60-question test, and just wants out of Kelly’s class because he’s afraid the teacher won’t treat him fairly now that the story reached the media.

“I’m going to have to deal with him for two more nine weeks (school quarters) and he’s going to want revenge somehow,” Vannoy said. “I took the test. I’m shaking. I’m furious. I didn’t know what to do.”

Kelly, who wore a Ben Roethlisberger jersey Friday, and his principal, Thomas Karczewski, didn’t immediately return messages left on their school voice mail.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. People's attitudes will change only when they decide to change them, not before. I think the poster idea is ok, but seems to me to cause unnecessary conflict. School should be where you learn tolerance, which includes tolerance for those whose value systems are different from your own. I would try to find a less conflict-generating way to teach it.

So a teacher gets disciplined for now displaying a rainbow banner, but nothing has heppened to this asshole teacher? Life just amazes me sometimes...
Holy shit! That's the high school I graduated from! OMG! :eek:

Holy shit! That's the high school I graduated from! OMG! :eek:

You have not heard anything about this yet? It has been all over ESPN today.

It's seems to me that they should be focusing more on punishing anyone who assaults or threatens any homosexual. But to force your opinion on others is wrong, no matter how right the opinion may be.

I wonder what the school would say if someone put up a big Swastika with the phrase "it's ok to be who you are here"




(please note before freakin out, I'm not comparing gays to Nazis)

You have not heard anything about this yet? It has been all over ESPN today.
I don't usually watch ESPN. No, this post of yours was the first time I have heard of this idiocy, although I can't say I'm all that surprised. Beaver was notorious for having rabid Steeler and Pirates fans.

Holy shit! That's the high school I graduated from! OMG! :eek:
No, I think they demolished the cave and put up an actual "building" in the late 1700's. Same place though! :D

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. People's attitudes will change only when they decide to change them, not before. I think the poster idea is ok, but seems to me to cause unnecessary conflict. School should be where you learn tolerance, which includes tolerance for those whose value systems are different from your own. I would try to find a less conflict-generating way to teach it.
I wouldn't mind putting the poster up in my own class, and making sure that the kids know that I will NOT put up with any derogatory remarks in my classroom, but yeah, making teachers put it up?

I don't usually watch ESPN. No, this post of yours was the first time I have heard of this idiocy, although I can't say I'm all that surprised. Beaver was notorious for having rabid Steeler and Pirates fans.

I didn't know there actually any Pirates fans ;)

No, I think they demolished the cave and put up an actual "building" in the late 1700's. Same place though! :D
[ death-dealing trout-smackdown! ] :p

Or maybe ... [ the monstrous trout of doom! ] LOL!

I didn't know there actually any Pirates fans ;)
Man, take a trip to Western PA and say something bad about the Pirates. You'll find out. Heh!

Man, take a trip to Western PA and say something bad about the Pirates. You'll find out. Heh!

Sure, I'll drive up to that way with my Braves hat on and my foam tomahawk!

Sure, I'll drive up to that way with my Braves hat on and my foam tomahawk!
Uh huh. Reminds me of the difference between "courage" and "foolhardiness!" :D

Uh huh. Reminds me of the difference between "courage" and "foolhardiness!" :D

Just like my drill sgt. told me, there is a thin line between being Hooah and being stupid!

Just like my drill sgt. told me, there is a thin line between being Hooah and being stupid!
Exactly! :)

Why is anyone who isn't gay/has religious beliefs living anyplace near San Francisco, anyway? I sure wouldn't.. eugh. Of course, I wouldn't pay those taxes or housing prices in any case.. :p

Let the protesting five have it there way. Just be prepared to smash them with some intolerance violation the istant an oppertunity presents itself.

The way I see it the banner is just a way of saying that you are safe from namecalling and harrassment as a homosexuall in the class, it doesn't state that the teacher approve of homosexuality, so I think it would be wrong not to put it up.

I agree. I so TOTALLY agree....

The way I see it the banner is just a way of saying that you are safe from namecalling and harrassment as a homosexuall in the class, it doesn't state that the teacher approve of homosexuality, so I think it would be wrong not to put it up.but it should be up to the Teacher on if the poster should be hung, and even where, not forced. The Real telling of the tale, is the teacher's attitude. as long as the teacher is fair and protects all kids from ridicule and namecalling... as long as the teacher makes all students feel safe and not threatened... that's the important thing.

what they need is a poster design that is all inclusive. including Sexual Preference, Race, Sex, Ability, and Religion (as in it doesn't matter if you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim or follow no faith... here in school, you are all STUDENTS.)

The way I see it the banner is just a way of saying that you are safe from namecalling and harrassment as a homosexuall in the class, it doesn't state that the teacher approve of homosexuality, so I think it would be wrong not to put it up.

So does not putting it up make him a bigot against homosexuals?


Reverse the roles in what you are saying... for example do all white supremacist have swastikas up somewhere in their house? If you don't have a confederate flag, swastikas, or KKK outfit in your house does that mean you are not a white supremacist?

People who have religions that interfere with them doing their job should not go into that job, period. These "teachers" are asswipes that put their own religious bigotry before their roles as teachers - and in a democratic society, teachers are to teach democratic values. Tolerance and freedom from persecution being part of them. You just know they wouldn't have objected against this had it been a racial or gender equality poster (although you can never be too sure, as religion is such a versatile scapegoat for personal prejudice). No, just because it's fags, they try to use religion as an excuse for bigotry.

Thus they make not just a mockery of their profession, through this lack of professionalism, but also defile their own religion in using it as a piss poor excuse for "eeew, I think fags and dykes are icky!".

but it should be up to the Teacher on if the poster should be hung, and even where, not forced. The Real telling of the tale, is the teacher's attitude. as long as the teacher is fair and protects all kids from ridicule and namecalling... as long as the teacher makes all students feel safe and not threatened... that's the important thing.

what they need is a poster design that is all inclusive. including Sexual Preference, Race, Sex, Ability, and Religion (as in it doesn't matter if you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim or follow no faith... here in school, you are all STUDENTS.)

JuNii makes a good point...


I cant believe they fired a teacher for coming out about here homosexuality! Is that legal? And whatever kid called the teacher a fag for hanging up the poster should have been expelled. How disrespectful.

I WISH the school my child attends had more concern about the safety and making sure all students feel safe. It seems all they care about is getting through their hectic days and not being bothered by the students.

but it should be up to the Teacher on if the poster should be hung, and even where, not forced. The Real telling of the tale, is the teacher's attitude. as long as the teacher is fair and protects all kids from ridicule and namecalling... as long as the teacher makes all students feel safe and not threatened... that's the important thing.
Bingo, I couldn't have put that better.

what they need is a poster design that is all inclusive. including Sexual Preference, Race, Sex, Ability, and Religion (as in it doesn't matter if you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim or follow no faith... here in school, you are all STUDENTS.)
Sounds like the next NS General project. ;)

People who have religions that interfere with them doing their job should not go into that job, period. These "teachers" are asswipes that put their own religious bigotry before their roles as teachers - and in a democratic society, teachers are to teach democratic values. Tolerance and freedom from persecution being part of them. You just know they wouldn't have objected against this had it been a racial or gender equality poster (although you can never be too sure, as religion is such a versatile scapegoat for personal prejudice). No, just because it's fags, they try to use religion as an excuse for bigotry.

Thus they make not just a mockery of their profession, through this lack of professionalism, but also defile their own religion in using it as a piss poor excuse for "eeew, I think fags and dykes are icky!".


Oh the irony.
You are intolerant and making all kinds of assumptions because five people don't want to put up a piece of paper; you have no idea whether or not their personal views impinge on their jobs. You don't have to approve of someone's lifestyle in order to protect their rights; you simply have to make it clear you won't tolerate harassment, name calling, or violence against ANYONE.

I question why it must single out sexuality on the posters. As another poster said, why not make it truly inclusive by not singling any group out and simply saying, "You are free to be whomever you are in this community?"

Oh the irony.
You are intolerant and making all kinds of assumptions because five people don't want to put up a piece of paper;

Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, "This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.

Reading the OP does help.

you have no idea whether or not their personal views impinge on their jobs.

They already have - we wouldn't be here discussing this story if their religious views had not "impinged on their jobs." Again, reading the OP does help.

You don't have to approve of someone's lifestyle in order to protect their rights; you simply have to make it clear you won't tolerate harassment, name calling, or violence against ANYONE.

Yes, and the perfect way of doing that is to refuse to put up a poster that makes it clear you won't tolerate harassment, name calling, or violence, and refer to a religious reason that by inference makes you unfit to be a teacher if your religion is so important to you that you uphold its homophobic tenets. :rolleyes:

If homosexuality is "against your religion" and that religion is important enough for you to refuse to do your job, then your capacity of not tolerating "harassment, name calling, or violence" against gay people is rightfully put into question. You don't get to claim that your religion doesn't "impinge on your job" when you've already proved that it does indeed impinge on your job.

I question why it must single out sexuality on the posters. As another poster said, why not make it truly inclusive by not singling any group out and simply saying, "You are free to be whomever you are in this community?"

The school district has been embroiled in controversy over homosexuality in the past.

In 1997, a parents group at the high school demanded that a gay teacher be fired after she came out to her class. In 2002, high school English teacher Karl Debro settled a lawsuit with the district for $1 million after he was disciplined for giving a lecture on racism and homophobia. A judge declared unconstitutional a district policy banning "controversial issues" from the classroom without a principal's approval.

Art teacher Tom Laughlin, who is gay and who oversaw the poster's design by students in the Gay-Straight Alliance, said he was surprised by the level of intolerance for homosexuality that he perceived when he started teaching at the high school five years ago. He said he recognized that it was critical when a student called him a "fag."

I will repeat it a third time, just so that it sticks: Reading the OP helps, as it renders your obtuse rhetorical questions quite dull and superfluous, indeed.

I wouldn't mind putting the poster up in my own class, and making sure that the kids know that I will NOT put up with any derogatory remarks in my classroom, but yeah, making teachers put it up?
Couple of things here. The article noted that the posters were part of an effort to comply with state laws, for starters. Secondly, while teachers have a great amount of autonomy in their classes, they don't have total freedom--the school has every right, and in some cases, duty to oversee what is posted in a classroom. I don't see how the teachers have any ground to object to the posters--it's not like the school is mandating that the teachers change their personal beliefs or put the posters up in their homes.

but it should be up to the Teacher on if the poster should be hung, and even where, not forced. The Real telling of the tale, is the teacher's attitude. as long as the teacher is fair and protects all kids from ridicule and namecalling... as long as the teacher makes all students feel safe and not threatened... that's the important thing.

what they need is a poster design that is all inclusive. including Sexual Preference, Race, Sex, Ability, and Religion (as in it doesn't matter if you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim or follow no faith... here in school, you are all STUDENTS.)
I agree with your first paragraph, but that's a pretty tall order for just a poster! Heh!

inpinge = infringe? :confused:

inpinge = infringe? :confused:

Impinge

Pronunciation: im-'pinj
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): im·pinged; im·ping·ing
Etymology: Latin impingere, from in- + pangere to fasten, drive in

to have an effect : make an impression <waiting for the germ of a new idea to impinge upon my mind -- Phyllis Bentley>

Heavy dose of reality: It's just a frakking POSTER, people! I seriously queston whether putting up a poster is either a solution for abuse of students whose behavior is outside the "norms" for the area, or somehow an infringement on the beliefs of others.

Based on the history of conflict over the issue of homosexuality in this district, I have to conclude that the poster is simply further polarizing people. Would it not be more effective to draft standards of conduct toward all students and then devote the time and energy to enforcing them, rather than getting your panties in a wad about a frakking POSTER? :headbang:

Personally if I was the administration I would have walked down and hung the poster in their room myself.

Then punished the teacher if they dont abide by the non-descrimination rules.

If the teacher is not willing to make the effort to hang a poster that just visualy states what they should be practicing anyways I would make the effort for them.

Heavy dose of reality: It's just a frakking POSTER, people! I seriously queston whether putting up a poster is either a solution for abuse of students whose behavior is outside the "norms" for the area, or somehow an infringement on the beliefs of others.

Based on the history of conflict over the issue of homosexuality in this district, I have to conclude that the poster is simply further polarizing people. Would it not be more effective to draft standards of conduct toward all students and then devote the time and energy to enforcing them, rather than getting your panties in a wad about a frakking POSTER? :headbang:
Hold on there--if it's just a frakking poster, then why should the teachers have their drawers in a wad over it? The teachers work in the public sphere, and because of that, their autonomy in the classroom is by definition limited--the state owns the classrooms and the state says put the posters up. If the teachers object, they can go to work for private schools that are less subject to state control.

Personally if I was the administration I would have walked down and hung the poster in their room myself.

Then punished the teacher if they dont abide by the non-descrimination rules.

If the teacher is not willing to make the effort to hang a poster that just visualy states what they should be practicing anyways I would make the effort for them.

As far as I'm concerned, if I was a teacher there, I figure the building belongs to someone else. That includes my classroom. If they wanted me to hang Mapplethorpe art on the wall, I would do it, over the objections of any parent.

I don't have a problem with non-discrimination rules - but I hardly think that a rainbow poster makes a difference.

It's impossible to legislate conduct. You can't force students who hate a particular group to love them - no matter how many rules you put in place or how many posters you hang.

If anything, the hate will just go silent, and be there as an undercurrent. But it will still be there.

Now, if they said that teachers had to put a rainbow bumper sticker on their personal vehicle, I would quit.

Man, take a trip to Western PA and say something bad about the Pirates. You'll find out. Heh!

Giggles.

I live in Western PA and I have been trying to follow this story. The Prinicpal is looking into it.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_416485.html

Honor student Joshua Vannoy thought his ethnic relations class would be the last place he'd be humiliated for wearing a Denver Broncos jersey.
But that's what the Beaver Falls High School junior said happened Friday, when teacher John Kelly directed him to sit on the floor to take a mid-term test, and passed out paper for other students to ball up and throw at him during the exam.

"Here he's teaching me to not look down on other cultures, and then he does this," Vannoy, 17, said Monday. "It's the opposite of what he's teaching in the class."

Kelly did not return calls seeking comment. However, he told the Denver Post, "When you are joking and everyone's laughing it's obvious. ... I did the same thing last week with one of my ninth-graders who wore Peyton Manning."

Big Beaver Falls Area School District Superintendent Donna Nugent said she was notified of the incident yesterday morning and is investigating to determine what action, if any, should be taken.

"We're still collecting all the facts," she said. "I can't discuss that right now. Our hands are tied about discussing it because it's an issue with students."

Vannoy said there were 60 questions on the test but he was so flustered he probably left 20 blank. He said he received an "A" in the class the first grading period and has about a 3.8 grade-point average.

A Big Beaver native and fan of Denver great John Elway, Vannoy wore a replica of the Hall of Fame quarterback's No. 7 jersey.

"I expected jokes and wisecracks about the jersey. I can handle that. But there's a line, and he crossed it," Vannoy said. "I'm not really a Steelers fan. My favorite team is actually the Dolphins, but I liked watching Elway so I root for Denver, too. I root for a lot of teams. I'm just an NFL fan."

Kelly also sported a No. 7 jersey -- that of Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger -- on Friday. When Vannoy walked into class and sat down, he said, Kelly told him to take his books off his desk and stand up. Kelly then arranged the desks in a circle, Vannoy said.

"He tells me to get down on the floor now or I'm not getting the test," Vannoy said. "At this point I'm thinking, 'Are you kidding me?' It's my mid-term exam. I had to get an 'A' on it."

Kelly then tossed the test at him, Vannoy said.

"Meanwhile, while I'm laying on the floor, he goes over and passes out paper and tells everyone Part 2 of the test is to wrinkle it and throw it at the Denver fan."

Some kids laughed and threw paper, while some refused, Vannoy said.

"He never cracked a smile the whole time. I was furious but I didn't say a word. I didn't know what to do," Vannoy said.

The teenager's father, Brian, said he left messages Friday for Kelly, Nugent and Principal Thomas Karczewski, but got no response until yesterday afternoon.

"He expected to be teased some, but not on test day like that," Brian Vannoy said. "It was the wrong atmosphere to do it."

Brian Vannoy wants his son to get a retest and to be transferred out of the class, where students have been studying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"I want out of that class," Joshua Vannoy said.

I'm of mixed feelings about this. I don't think the behavior is appropriate, but I have several friends who are g/l/b. The bi one was even my girlfriend for awhile - and she broke up with me, not I with her. So, while I disapprove of the behavior, I have absolutely no problem with the people, and would approve even less of insulting them.

And, on the one hand, while putting up a poster could be interpreted as my endorsement of particular beliefs, if it's in EVERY classroom (it seems rather pointless, actually - just put it on the door of the school building, for crying out loud, 'cause saying something doesn't make it so) it would be much less likely to be interpreted as my personal stance. Both of these would seem to direct compliance.

However, I am disturbed by the fact that such a politically loaded issue is mandated by the district, and concerned by suggestions that those who have x values and hold to them cannot properly do their job should not be thus employed (ie, by the government). It seems a short step from requiring all teachers to have such a poster on their door to requiring all teachers having to wear a rainbow pin for a day.

Personally if I was the administration I would have walked down and hung the poster in their room myself.

Then punished the teacher if they dont abide by the non-descrimination rules.

If the teacher is not willing to make the effort to hang a poster that just visualy states what they should be practicing anyways I would make the effort for them.

Then you have intimidation lawsuit against the school.

[QUOTE=Man in Black]It's seems to me that they should be focusing more on punishing anyone who assaults or threatens any homosexual. But to force your opinion on others is wrong, no matter how right the opinion may be.

I wonder what the school would say if someone put up a big Swastika with the phrase "it's ok to be who you are here"



I THINK THAT YOU MAKE A POINT WORTH PONDERING.

WHAT DID THE DUMBASS EXPECT YOU KNOW IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AND CHOSE TO CREATE A CONFLICTING SITUATION. SAD THAT IT WAS THE TEACHER AND NOT SOME STUDENTS. HE SHOULD BE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT HE WAS GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS.

GO PITTSBURGH STEELERS ALL THE WAY.

Giggles.

I live in Western PA and I have been trying to follow this story. The Prinicpal is looking into it.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_416485.html

I would have sided with the teachers, until I saw their reason for opposing it. They can get the fuck over it then.

WHAT DID THE DUMBASS EXPECT YOU KNOW IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AND CHOSE TO CREATE A CONFLICTING SITUATION. TOO BAD IT WAS THE TEACHER AND NOT SOME STUDENTS. HE SHOULD BE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT HE WAS GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS.

GO PITTSBURGH STEELERS ALL THE WAY.

Do you have to shout?

Also, you have something against people who support a different team than one that is hometown?

This teacher was very classless and a fool. Thank God I am not in that school district.

This is intolerence right here. This is what we all should strive to end.

I would have sided with the teachers, until I saw their reason for opposing it. They can get the fuck over it then.

However, the school shouldn't force posters in classrooms like that. If they want to do that then they should allow for Christian posters too. Maybe even black one?

Which of those 2 do you think will likely get put up first?

However, the school shouldn't force posters in classrooms like that.
Like I said, if they had a real reason for opposing the posters being in their classrooms, I would be behind them 100%; however, they are homophobic assholes and can thus get the fuck over it.

Like I said, if they had a real reason for opposing the posters being in their classrooms, I would be behind them 100%; however, they are homophobic assholes and can thus get the fuck over it.

So what about their rights? And u dodged my question too.

However, the school shouldn't force posters in classrooms like that. If they want to do that then they should allow for Christian posters too. Maybe even black one?

Which of those 2 do you think will likely get put up first?
Again--it's not the school, it's the state. It's part of an anti-discrimination campaign (which, by the way, the Christian posters you would like up would violate).

(which, by the way, the Christian posters you would like up would violate).

Even though it could be claimed it was part of an Anti-discrimination campaign against Christians?

If we can't have Christian posters as part of an Anti-discrimination campaign then we shouldn't allow for gay posters as part of an anti-discrimination campaign.

Fair is fair as momma always says.

So what about their rights? And u dodged my question too.
No, I asnwered your question. I answered your question in my first post; you jsut keep making me repeat it. They are not opposing the posters on the ground it violates their rights; they are opposing the posters on the grounds they are homophobic assholes. Since that is the case, they can get the fuck over it.

Even though it could be claimed it was part of an Anti-discrimination campaign against Christians?]
There is no discrimination against Christians. Well, maybe against the ones with illusionary victim complexes.

No, I asnwered your question. I answered your question in my first post; you jsut keep making me repeat it. They are not opposing the posters on the ground it violates their rights; they are opposing the posters on the grounds they are homophobic assholes. Since that is the case, they can get the fuck over it.

How do you know they are homophobes? Maybe they aren't. Maybe they just do not like homosexuality. U can be against something but not be afraid of it.

How do you know they are homophobes? Maybe they aren't. Maybe they just do not like homosexuality. U can be against something but not be afraid of it.
What the fuck do you mean they arn't homophobes? They are opposing the posters because they say "homosexuality violates their religion beliefs." Never mind the fact that no one gives a fuck what your religion is in the classroom.
Not to mention all the cases of homophobia at the school. You are just making up bullshit.

Phobia: 2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

Ugh... Just Another Example Of Overzealousousness Creating Stupidity. Seriously, I Understand The Students Harrassing The Gay Students, But Seriously, What's With A Teacher Getting Fired For Being Gay, And Now Teachers Refuse To Teach Homosexual Tolerance? This Is Bullshit Man. I May Be Straight, But I Will Not Stand For Intolerance Like This. We Need A Fucking Lawsuit Or Something...

What the fuck do you mean they arn't homophobes? They are opposing the posters because they say "homosexuality violates their religion beliefs." Never mind the fact that no one gives a fuck what your religion is in the classroom.
Not to mention all the cases of homophobia at the school. You are just making up bullshit.

Phobia: 2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

So because they are against homosexuality automatically makes them a homophode?

As spock always said, "that is illogical"

So because they are against homosexuality automatically makes them a homophode?

As spock always said, "that is illogical"

What I think is even more illogical is that if I don't want to hang a rainbow poster, I'm somehow a homophobe.

Look, I've had sex with men myself, and I'm not about to put a rainbow sticker on my car. Does that make me a homophobe?

So because they are against homosexuality automatically makes them a homophode?

As spock always said, "that is illogical"
It is perfectly logical. It is called using context clues. And, yes it makes them a homophobe - one who has an irrational fear or contempt of homosexuals.

The only teacher I support is the one who won't put it up because he is against them mandating it.

And to Kimchi, who I know doesn't read my posts, just sees my name and makes up crap: I already explained why their are homophobes, twice.

What I think is even more illogical is that if I don't want to hang a rainbow poster, I'm somehow a homophobe.

Look, I've had sex with men myself, and I'm not about to put a rainbow sticker on my car. Does that make me a homophobe?

I dont think it does.

It is perfectly logical. It is called using context clues. And, yes it makes them a homophobe - one who has an irrational fear or contempt of homosexuals.

I see you don't understand logic.

I have a friend who is a lesbian however she doesn't like rainbows and doesn't have one hanging up anywhere in her house. Does that make her a homophobe?

I see you don't understand logic.

I have a friend who is a lesbian however she doesn't like rainbows and doesn't have one hanging up anywhere in her house. Does that make her a homophobe?
That is called a strawman. Hell, that is a textbook strawman. "Creating a weaker argument and defeating it and pretending the real argument has been defeated."

They are homophobes because they oppose the posters because they are against homosexuality.

Hold on there--if it's just a frakking poster, then why should the teachers have their drawers in a wad over it? The teachers work in the public sphere, and because of that, their autonomy in the classroom is by definition limited--the state owns the classrooms and the state says put the posters up. If the teachers object, they can go to work for private schools that are less subject to state control.
I agree ... completely! :eek:

That is called a strawman. Hell, that is a textbook strawman. "Creating a weaker argument and defeating it and pretending the real argument has been defeated."

They are homophobes because they oppose the posters because they are against homosexuality.

That doesn't make them homophobes. I see that you don't believe in logic and believe in what my science teacher would say, Circular reasoning.

They are homophobes because they do not believe in homosexuality and because tey dont that makes them homophobes.

Yea right.

Giggles. This is getting funny now.

I don't have a problem with non-discrimination rules - but I hardly think that a rainbow poster makes a difference.

It's impossible to legislate conduct. You can't force students who hate a particular group to love them - no matter how many rules you put in place or how many posters you hang.
It's not impossible to "legislate" conduct. I suspect you meant "attitude."

That is called a strawman. Hell, that is a textbook strawman. "Creating a weaker argument and defeating it and pretending the real argument has been defeated."

They are homophobes because they oppose the posters because they are against homosexuality.

While I think it's the school admin's choice as to what to hang in the classroom, I do object to hanging the posters, because unless my class is a government or political science class, it's irrelevant to the class.

If I was teaching chemistry, for example, the periodic table is a good poster.

I think that a lot of American education is going down the toilet because we waste time teaching things that have nothing to do with basic subjects.

My children, for example, spend at least an hour a day on subjects that they have already learned at home, and could be better spent on core education like reading, writing, math, science, and history.

Even though it could be claimed it was part of an Anti-discrimination campaign against Christians?

If we can't have Christian posters as part of an Anti-discrimination campaign then we shouldn't allow for gay posters as part of an anti-discrimination campaign.

Fair is fair as momma always says.
Here's the difference--the anti gay-discrimination posters have the purpose of fostering inclusion of a smaller group in the larger community, and there's long standing evidence that the smaller group in question has been not only discriminated against, but physically and emotionally attacked and harmed in the past. Could christians make the same case? Not a chance in hell--they're the dominant group, and what's more, have a history of being the discriminators against other religious groups in the US.

But what's more important in this discussion is that when it comes to religion, the state (and I'm talking primarily about the California constitution) has to be neutral--no religion favored over another, and to promote christianity in such a way would be a violation. However, when it comes to human rights, the California constitution is probably the most liberal in the US in protecting minority groups against discrimination, and so the campaign to make homosexuals feel safe is practically mandated.

Giggles.

I live in Western PA and I have been trying to follow this story. The Prinicpal is looking into it.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_416485.html
That article has been posted already. It was the first time I had heard about it, and it surprised me that the high school in question, Beaver Area Senior High School, was the one from which I graduated ... in 1961! Heh!

That article has been posted already. It was the first time I had heard about it, and it surprised me that the high school in question, Beaver Area Senior High School, was the one from which I graduated ... in 1961! Heh!

:EEK:

Hopefully the teacher gets punished.

I am disturbed by the fact that such a politically loaded issue is mandated by the district, and concerned by suggestions that those who have x values and hold to them cannot properly do their job should not be thus employed (ie, by the government).
Then the school district would have a discrimination case based on religious preference on their hands.

That doesn't make them homophobes. I see that you don't believe in logic and believe in what my science teacher would say, Circular reasoning.
Becuase you don't want to see the logic. It isn't circular reasoning. They are homophobes because they oppose homosexuality. How the fuck is that circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is this:
Marijuana is illegal. Since we shouldn't violate the law, we shouldn't smoke marijuana. And since we shouldn't smoke it, the government should make sure it is illegal.

Here is what you said:
It is illegal to smoke marijuana because marijuana is illegal.

They are homophobes because they do not believe in homosexuality and because tey dont that makes them homophobes.
That isn't circular reasoning, that is redundancy.

While I think it's the school admin's choice as to what to hang in the classroom, I do object to hanging the posters, because unless my class is a government or political science class, it's irrelevant to the class.
I already said I support the guy who won't hang it in his room because he opposes the mandating of it. The others oppose it because they don't like homosexuality, not because they oppose the mandating of it.

Here's the difference--the anti gay-discrimination posters have the purpose of fostering inclusion of a smaller group in the larger community, and there's long standing evidence that the smaller group in question has been not only discriminated against, but physically and emotionally attacked and harmed in the past. Could christians make the same case? Not a chance in hell--they're the dominant group, and what's more, have a history of being the discriminators against other religious groups in the US.

To a point I will agree with you however these posters should have no place in a history class room. In a sexuality class, yes it has a place there but not in a history or math class room.

But what's more important in this discussion is that when it comes to religion, the state (and I'm talking primarily about the California constitution) has to be neutral--no religion favored over another, and to promote christianity in such a way would be a violation. However, when it comes to human rights, the California constitution is probably the most liberal in the US in protecting minority groups against discrimination, and so the campaign to make homosexuals feel safe is practically mandated.

I hope you know that there are many different branches of christianity. If it makes ya feel better, but up muslim and jewish posters next to the Christian ones. That means that all 3 main religions will be there together. No one can possibly complain :)

Its been fun people but I have a doctor's appointment to get ready for because I haven't been feeling so good lately.

Take care people and maybe I'll be back :)

Ugh... Just Another Example Of Overzealousousness Creating Stupidity. Seriously, I Understand The Students Harrassing The Gay Students, But Seriously, What's With A Teacher Getting Fired For Being Gay, And Now Teachers Refuse To Teach Homosexual Tolerance? This Is Bullshit Man. I May Be Straight, But I Will Not Stand For Intolerance Like This. We Need A Fucking Lawsuit Or Something...
No one suggested that they are refusing to teach tolerance, only that they refuse to put up the poster because it somehow violates their religious beliefs.

To a point I will agree with you however these posters should have no place in a history class room. In a sexuality class, yes it has a place there but not in a history or math class room.
The posters have nothing to do with the class' curriculum. They are general posters to try and mitigate all of the rampant discrimination of homosexuals in the school.

The posters have nothing to do with the class' curriculum. They are general posters to try and mitigate all of the rampant discrimination of homosexuals in the school.

Proof of rampant discrimination?

It is perfectly logical. It is called using context clues. And, yes it makes them a homophobe - one who has an irrational fear or contempt of homosexuals.

The only teacher I support is the one who won't put it up because he is against them mandating it.

And to Kimchi, who I know doesn't read my posts, just sees my name and makes up crap: I already explained why their are homophobes, twice.
"Homophobe" is a loaded word. Simply because someone feels their religion forbids them to support homosexuality does not make them a "homophobe."

That doesn't make them homophobes.

Yes it does:

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

The suffix "-phobia" does not only mean "fear," it also means "intolerance or aversion for." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=-phobia)

So, you simply do not seem to know what the word means. "Homophobe" can mean "someone irrationally afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality," but that is a significantly less common meaning. Etymologically, and through a vastly more popular usage, it means "someone harbouring aversion towards or who is intolerant of homosexuals or homosexuality."

So, yes, they are indeed homophobes.

The posters have nothing to do with the class' curriculum. They are general posters to try and mitigate all of the rampant discrimination of homosexuals in the school.

My final post for now:

Then put them in the hallway and NOT in the classroom.

To a point I will agree with you however these posters should have no place in a history class room. In a sexuality class, yes it has a place there but not in a history or math class room.If the purpose of the poster were to be used as a teaching tool, you might have a point, but the purpose of the poster is to let gay students know that they are supposed to be protected and not singled out because of their sexual orientation. That should be the case in every classroom, regardless of the subject being taught--or is it okay to call a kid a fag in History class but not in Human Sexuality?

I hope you know that there are many different branches of christianity. If it makes ya feel better, but up muslim and jewish posters next to the Christian ones. That means that all 3 main religions will be there together. No one can possibly complain :)
Atheists could. So could Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, Agnostics, Ba'Hai (though they probably wouldn't), fundamentalist christians who believe that they have the only true road to salvation and all others are heretics or any of the other thousands of religious sects around the world. What you are suggesting is beyond impractical--it's impossible. Stay out of it altogether.

That is called a strawman. Hell, that is a textbook strawman. "Creating a weaker argument and defeating it and pretending the real argument has been defeated."

They are homophobes because they oppose the posters because they are against homosexuality.
It was not indicated that they "are against homosexuality," only that they object to supporting it on religious grounds. What part of this do you not understand?

Proof of rampant discrimination?
Well at least you are subtly admitting you just jump into conversations without knowing what they are about. Read the article in the bloody topic post.

It was not indicated that they "are against homosexuality," only that they object to supporting it on religious grounds. What part of this do you not understand?
Then they stand to foster the already proven anti-homosexual feelings and sentiments in the school, all of those were probably caused by people whose religion opposes homosexuality. It doesn't matter what their religion says, they don't have to teach anything; however, they need to not foster the homophobic atmosphere and at least try to work towards tolerant.

I think that a lot of American education is going down the toilet because we waste time teaching things that have nothing to do with basic subjects.

My children, for example, spend at least an hour a day on subjects that they have already learned at home, and could be better spent on core education like reading, writing, math, science, and history.
Isn't it fascinating how many of the very people who want extraneous, PC subjects taught in school are the same ones who decry the state of American education? This is the primary reason homeschooling has become a major cottage industry.

Isn't it fascinating how many of the very people who want extraneous, PC subjects taught in school are the same ones who decry the state of American education? This is the primary reason homeschooling has become a major cottage industry.
Whoever has actually read the article raise your hand.

*raises hand*

No one has said they have to or even should teach anything in class, except you.

It was not indicated that they "are against homosexuality," only that they object to supporting it on religious grounds. What part of this do you not understand?

What a weak argument, Eutrusca. You're saying that people who are intolerant of homosexuality aren't against it? :rolleyes:

:EEK:

Hopefully the teacher gets punished.
For what??? Letting me graduate? LOL!

My final post for now:

Then put them in the hallway and NOT in the classroom.
The school or state can put them wherever they damn well please.

My final post for now:

Then put them in the hallway and NOT in the classroom.

There is no reason not to put them in the classroom. The bigoted teachers do not own it.

No one suggested that they are refusing to teach tolerance, only that they refuse to put up the poster because it somehow violates their religious beliefs.
Now that's an interesting question---how does treating a homosexual person like a person instead of a circus freak violate someone's religious beliefs? No one is asking these teachers to suck a dick or go lesbo for Jesus--they're just saying that the teachers have to make sure the kids aren't screwed with in class. That, it seems to me, is an essential part of the job.

Yes it does:

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

The suffix "-phobia" does not only mean "fear," it also means "intolerance or aversion for." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=-phobia)

So, you simply do not seem to know what the word means. "Homophobe" can mean "someone irrationally afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality," but that is a significantly less common meaning. Etymologically, and through a vastly more popular usage, it means "someone harbouring aversion towards or who is intolerant of homosexuals or homosexuality."

So, yes, they are indeed homophobes.
No, Fass. You don't live here. The term "homophobe" is used almost exclusively as the first definition states it: "irrational fear of ... homosexuality and homosexuals. It's used almost entirely as a term of derogation toward any who oppose homosexuality, reagardless of their reasons for doing so.

Now that's an interesting question---how does treating a homosexual person like a person instead of a circus freak violate someone's religious beliefs? No one is asking these teachers to suck a dick or go lesbo for Jesus--they're just saying that the teachers have to make sure the kids aren't screwed with in class. That, it seems to me, is an essential part of the job.

An essential part of my job as manager at work is to make sure that no one gets screwed with, period. Regardless of whether or not they're gay.

Maybe if we enforced rules on bullying and the like, we'd get a lot further, than if we just protected one group.

Obviously, you haven't raised children. Children are naturally mean at school unless it's made very clear that NO mean act will be tolerated. Putting up a rainbow poster is a useless, pointless, ineffective gesture.

At my childrens' elementary school they have a No Bullying policy - period. One act and you go to a school where all the other bullies are sent. This includes taunting, etc.

Works quite well - and the teachers use it regardless of who is on the receiving end.

No one suggested that they are refusing to teach tolerance, only that they refuse to put up the poster because it somehow violates their religious beliefs.

It violates their religious beliefs because it promotes tolerance. Or would you claim it promotes something else? :rolleyes:

If the purpose of the poster were to be used as a teaching tool, you might have a point, but the purpose of the poster is to let gay students know that they are supposed to be protected and not singled out because of their sexual orientation.
Then the law, and thus the school, should have mandated behavioral controls, not posters. Alternatively, as I have suggested, put up posters stating that all students have a right to be free from harrassment, intimidation, etc., not just one group. That way, the teachers' complaint is moot.

So a teacher gets disciplined for now displaying a rainbow banner, but nothing has heppened to this asshole teacher? Life just amazes me sometimes...

I suspect the whole point of doing that in ETHNICITY CLASS was to make him feel like an outsider for no reason, illustrating perfectly the stupidity of discrimination by colour.

... the teachers have to make sure the kids aren't screwed with in class. That, it seems to me, is an essential part of the job.
I agree with this. But how the hell is a frakking POSTER going to accomplish anything in this situation other than exacerbate what is apparently already a matter of serious concern?

No, Fass. You don't live here. The term "homophobe" is used almost exclusively as the first definition states it: "irrational fear of ... homosexuality and homosexuals.

Bullshit, and you know it. The medical usage of "homophobe" is the rarer usage.

It's used almost entirely as a term of derogation toward any who oppose homosexuality, reagardless of their reasons for doing so.

So, now all of a sudden it is "almost entirely" the second, and primary, usage that is the most common? Make up your mind.

Maybe if we enforced rules on bullying and the like, we'd get a lot further, than if we just protected one group.

Obviously, you haven't raised children. Children are naturally mean at school unless it's made very clear that NO mean act will be tolerated. Putting up a rainbow poster is a useless, pointless, ineffective gesture.

At my childrens' elementary school they have a No Bullying policy - period. One act and you go to a school where all the other bullies are sent. This includes taunting, etc.

Works quite well - and the teachers use it regardless of who is on the receiving end.
[ applauds your children's shool ] This is what changes things, not frakking posters that only serve to further alienate people from each other.

It violates their religious beliefs because it promotes tolerance. Or would you claim it promotes something else? :rolleyes:
Fass, man ... I'm not "claiming" anything except that the damned poster is only making things worse. If the school would simply demand that everyone treat everyone else with the same respect they want for themselves, most of the problems would go away.

You know, I think that they should teach a class on manners beginning in Kindergarten, and then every year until a student graduates. Its an important subject and I;ve always wondered if they began teaching children at an early age how to be polite, non judgemental, accepting of others regardless of their differences, etc. would it produce better behavior, more harmonious relationships, equality, less prejudice...all of the things that we as parents should be teaching our children in the first place. My son is 18 months old and he says "thank you" already everytime you hand him an object. I think that just as parents are charged with assiting in their children's education- maybe schools should take part in helping teach appropriate behavior.

Its like children are taught to be racist and intolerant of people who are different than them from the time they are born....thats just sad.

Bullshit, and you know it. The medical usage of "homophobe" is the rarer usage.

So, now all of a sudden it is "almost entirely" the second, and primary, usage that is the most common? Make up your mind.
As I said, you don't live here. The term is used almost exclusively in its most derogatory sense, that of indicating that someone is "irrational" and "fearful."

I suspect the whole point of doing that in ETHNICITY CLASS was to make him feel like an outsider for no reason, illustrating perfectly the stupidity of discrimination by colour.

Since when did homosexuality become an ethnic group?

Fass, man ... I'm not "claiming" anything except that the damned poster is only making things worse.

No, the teachers are making everything worse. Do not blame the poster for their bigotry.

You know, I think that they should teach a class on manners beginning in Kindergarten, and then every year until a student graduates. Its an important subject and I;ve always wondered if they began teaching children at an early age how to be polite, non judgemental, accepting of others regardless of their differences, etc. would it produce better behavior, more harmonious relationships, equality, less prejudice...all of the things that we as parents should be teaching our children in the first place. My son is 18 months old and he says "thank you" already everytime you hand him an object. I think that just as parents are charged with assiting in their children's education- maybe schools should take part in helping teach appropriate behavior.

Its like children are taught to be racist and intolerant of people who are different than them from the time they are born....thats just sad.
Hi, Peechy! I totally agree with you on this. It's sad to the point of dispair that so many parents are so incapable of teaching their children tolerance and of the need for respect and mannerly behavior toward others. There are times when I wish I could just knock their stupid heads together until they either got some sense or frakking expired! Sigh.

You know, I think that they should teach a class on manners beginning in Kindergarten, and then every year until a student graduates. Its an important subject and I;ve always wondered if they began teaching children at an early age how to be polite, non judgemental, accepting of others regardless of their differences, etc. would it produce better behavior, more harmonious relationships, equality, less prejudice...all of the things that we as parents should be teaching our children in the first place. My son is 18 months old and he says "thank you" already everytime you hand him an object. I think that just as parents are charged with assiting in their children's education- maybe schools should take part in helping teach appropriate behavior.

Its like children are taught to be racist and intolerant of people who are different than them from the time they are born....thats just sad.

This is what I'm going to teach my kids when I have them. Thanks Peechland :)

As I said, you don't live here.

And you don't live in Great Britain - that precludes you from knowing what a British term most often means?

The term is used almost exclusively in its most derogatory sense, that of indicating that someone is "irrational" and "fearful."

Irrational, perhaps, but fearful, as in the phobia, no. The suffix -phobia in that word in this usage has the "aversion" and "intolerance" meaning.

Irrational, perhaps, but fearful, as in the phobia, no. The suffix -phobia in that word in this usage has the "aversion" and "intolerance" meaning.

Actually, phobia means fear of something. I have a fear of thunderstorms. I freak when one is close by or on top of me. Does that mean I'm intolerant of thunderstorms?

No, the teachers are making everything worse. Do not blame the poster for their bigotry.
Sigh. I'm not.

I don't know how you could have read that into what I said. One must live with the world as it is and change that which can be changed, in ways which actually work.

Teaching tolerance and respect toward everyone, and enforcing positive behaviors by punishing unacceptable behaviors, are going to work far better than requiring people to do things ( like putting up a poster, for God's sake! ) which only serve to drive them further apart.

You know, I think that they should teach a class on manners beginning in Kindergarten, and then every year until a student graduates. Its an important subject and I;ve always wondered if they began teaching children at an early age how to be polite, non judgemental, accepting of others regardless of their differences, etc. would it produce better behavior, more harmonious relationships, equality, less prejudice...all of the things that we as parents should be teaching our children in the first place. My son is 18 months old and he says "thank you" already everytime you hand him an object. I think that just as parents are charged with assiting in their children's education- maybe schools should take part in helping teach appropriate behavior.

Its like children are taught to be racist and intolerant of people who are different than them from the time they are born....thats just sad.agreed... My Church taught us manners. and there were times I wished my school did as well.

Common sense... it ain't that common. :)

Actually, phobia means fear of something. I have a fear of thunderstorms. I freak when one is close by or on top of me. Does that mean I'm intolerant of thunderstorms?

Did not you read my response to you and the link I provided you with? (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=-phobia) Go ahead, click. Go on, it won't won't bite. Then read.

Please, in the future, do not respond to me unless you have read what I have written and provided you with.

And you don't live in Great Britain - that precludes you from knowing what a British term most often means?

Irrational, perhaps, but fearful, as in the phobia, no. The suffix -phobia in that word in this usage has the "aversion" and "intolerance" meaning.
In your mind ... and in mine, I suppose ... that is true. However, most people either can't, or don't bother, to make such fine distinctions.

Did not you read my response to you and the link I provided you with? (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=-phobia) Go ahead, click. Go on, it won't won't bite. Then read.


Please, in the future, do not respond to me unless you have read what I have written and provided you with.

Look. Right now, I'm on pins and needles because of this doc appointment that I have. I'm afraid I am not thinking as clearly as I should. I wish i was in school right now but my parents kept me out of it today.

I already know that there were 2 definitions however, we always seem to go with number 1 in most cases.

Teaching tolerance and respect toward everyone, and enforcing positive behaviors by punishing unacceptable behaviors, are going to work far better than requiring people to do things ( like putting up a poster, for God's sake! ) which only serve to drive them further apart.

Again, the poster is not driving anyone apart. It is the bigotry of the teachers, not to mention their lack of professionalism.

agreed... My Church taught us manners. and there were times I wished my school did as well.

Common sense... it ain't that common. :)
I don't want to offend you in any way, but may I ask a question ( you don't have to answer if you would rather not, obviously ): did your parents teach you to be respectful and mannerly?

In your mind ... and in mine, I suppose ... that is true.

See, that wasn't very hard, was it?

Again, the poster is not driving anyone apart. It is the bigotry of the teachers, not to mention their lack of professionalism.
I tend to agree, but why simply add fuel to an already raging fire?

Again, the poster is not driving anyone apart. It the bigotry of the teachers, not to mention their lack of professionalism.

I prefer my local school policy. They protect everyone from harassment, not just homosexuals.

Fat kids, for example. Ever see a fat kid get teased when you were in school? Why no banners saying that fat kids are welcome?

I prefer a No Bullying, No Harassment policy for EVERYONE.

See, that wasn't very hard, was it?
ROFLMAO! Fass, you are definitely one of a kind! LOL! :D

I already know that there were 2 definitions however, we always seem to go with number 1 in most cases.

Not in this one.

And doctor's appointments are nothing to fear. Iatrophobia is unnecessary.

An essential part of my job as manager at work is to make sure that no one gets screwed with, period. Regardless of whether or not they're gay.

Maybe if we enforced rules on bullying and the like, we'd get a lot further, than if we just protected one group.

Obviously, you haven't raised children. Children are naturally mean at school unless it's made very clear that NO mean act will be tolerated. Putting up a rainbow poster is a useless, pointless, ineffective gesture.

At my childrens' elementary school they have a No Bullying policy - period. One act and you go to a school where all the other bullies are sent. This includes taunting, etc.

Works quite well - and the teachers use it regardless of who is on the receiving end.Actually, I have a fifteen year old daughter, and trust me, I know that kids are naturally mean--has to do with the unrestrained ego. Putting up the poster alone won't do the trick--I never said it would--but it does make a statement that the school administration, which should include the teachers, will not tolerate abusive behavior. If a teacher refuses to put the poster up, for whatever reason, that teacher is in effect saying that it's okay to single out minority groups for attack, whether physical or emotional.

Not in this one.

And doctor's appointments are nothing to fear. Iatrophobia is unnecessary.

Unfortunately this is a tad more than an ordinary checkup. It is probably going to confirm something that I already suspect and I'm hoping I'm wrong.

I'm sorry I snapped at you Fass.

I prefer my local school policy. They protect everyone from harassment, not just homosexuals.

Fat kids, for example. Ever see a fat kid get teased when you were in school? Why no banners saying that fat kids are welcome?

I prefer a No Bullying, No Harassment policy for EVERYONE.

And this school has a larger problem with homophobic bullying. They are directing this initiative against that. There is nothing to suggest that they are neglecting other sorts of bullying when applying a countermeasure to the one they seem to have the most problems with. Or would you claim that there are? That this poster somehow means they have abandoned all other anti-bullying measures?

I prefer my local school policy. They protect everyone from harassment, not just homosexuals.

Fat kids, for example. Ever see a fat kid get teased when you were in school? Why no banners saying that fat kids are welcome?

I prefer a No Bullying, No Harassment policy for EVERYONE.
Hell! I got teased unmercifully when I was little because I was so skinny and my ears stuck out! Perhaps I should be grateful though, it's how I learned to fight. :D

I was also teased because I lived with my grandparents and not my mother and father. Anything "different" about a child will become the excuse for teasing and bullying. Sad, but true.

Unfortunately this is a tad more than an ordinary checkup. It is probably going to confirm something that I already suspect and I'm hoping I'm wrong.

Knowledge is never something one should fear. It arms you so you may combat that which needs to be.

I'm sorry I snapped at you Fass.

No need for apologies. This is the Internet - nothing here is to be taken too seriously or personally.

Hell! I got teased unmercifully when I was little because I was so skinny and my ears stuck out! Perhaps I should be grateful though, it's how I learned to fight. :D

I was also teased because I lived with my grandparents and not my mother and father. Anything "different" about a child will become the excuse for teasing and bullying. Sad, but true.I had glasses from the time I was in kindergarten and I was a Jehovah's Witness. Top that! :D

Oh yeah--I had asthma and carried an inhaler too.

And this school has a larger problem with homophobic bullying. They are directing this initiative against that. There is nothing to suggest that they are neglecting other sorts of bullying when applying a countermeasure to the one they seem to have the most problems with. Or would you claim that there are? That this poster somehow means they have abandoned all other anti-bullying measures?
Interesting point, Mr. Fass. Wouldn't it be an easy out for both the administration and many teachers to point at the poster and use that as an excuse to avoid confronting the issue in a more substantive, effective way?

I don't want to offend you in any way, but may I ask a question ( you don't have to answer if you would rather not, obviously ): did your parents teach you to be respectful and mannerly?yes. however, manners is not something that should only be taught by the parents (since it's obvious that all parents are not teaching their children.)

Some parents actually let the schools do the teaching and they offer little or no support to the child. :(

Oh and no offense taken.

Knowledge is never something one should fear. It arms you so you may combat that which needs to be.

Thank you Fass!

*hugs you*

No need for apologies. This is the Internet - nothing here is to be taken too seriously or personally.

Thanks :)

Well I'm off to that appointment. I'll be back to reply later. Pleasure meeting you people :)

Interesting point, Mr. Fass. Wouldn't it be an easy out for both the administration and many teachers to point at the poster and use that as an excuse to avoid confronting the issue in a more substantive, effective way?

Are they? There are no signs that they are, as far as we know. And why would this initiative itself be to blame for that?

And this school has a larger problem with homophobic bullying. They are directing this initiative against that. There is nothing to suggest that they are neglecting other sorts of bullying when applying a countermeasure to the one they seem to have the most problems with. Or would you claim that there are? That this poster somehow means they have abandoned all other anti-bullying measures?

Our local school has a strict No Bullying policy regardless of the status of the victim.

Kids are told this the first week, every year. One act, and you go to "the farm", which is a school for bullies, essentially.

Somehow, we don't have a problem with homophobic bullying - or any bullying for that matter. It's a matter of telling the children that it won't be accepted in any form, for any reason, and the teachers will nail you for it.

Without any posters.

Maybe that school should institute the same policy. I bet the problem would go away.

It's much easier to fire a teacher for not enforcing a global no bullying policy.

I had glasses from the time I was in kindergarten and I was a Jehovah's Witness. Top that! :D

Oh yeah--I had asthma and carried an inhaler too.


you poor thing.

I had glasses from the time I was in kindergarten and I was a Jehovah's Witness. Top that! :D

Oh yeah--I had asthma and carried an inhaler too.
OMG! Now I feel sympathetic toward you! How the hell can I flame you anymore if I feel sympathy? :eek:

I can definitely identify. :fluffle:

Interesting point, Mr. Fass. Wouldn't it be an easy out for both the administration and many teachers to point at the poster and use that as an excuse to avoid confronting the issue in a more substantive, effective way?
Again--this is only a school issue because of the refusal of these teachers. The program is a statewide one, if I read the original article correctly, and like all one-size-fits-all programs, is not meant to be the entire solution to a problem.

Are they? There are no signs that they are, as far as we know. And why would this initiative itself be to blame for that?
I don't know that they are, just saying that they could be, given the history we know about the problems there. It wouldn't be the poster itself to blame for the subterfuge, just sheer conflict avoidance and administrative inertia.

No, I think they demolished the cave and put up an actual "building" in the late 1700's. Same place though! :D

ROFLMAO

People who have religions that interfere with them doing their job should not go into that job, period. These "teachers" are asswipes that put their own religious bigotry before their roles as teachers - and in a democratic society, teachers are to teach democratic values. Tolerance and freedom from persecution being part of them. You just know they wouldn't have objected against this had it been a racial or gender equality poster (although you can never be too sure, as religion is such a versatile scapegoat for personal prejudice). No, just because it's fags, they try to use religion as an excuse for bigotry.

Thus they make not just a mockery of their profession, through this lack of professionalism, but also defile their own religion in using it as a piss poor excuse for "eeew, I think fags and dykes are icky!".

Fass, I don't agree that they should protest it because of religion. I think they should protest it being mandatory. Making it mandatory was a stupid idea. First of all, it makes it seem like not having it up is automatically a sign that intolerance is acceptable rather than having the ability to simply say you don't like the poster.

In another thread I was just defending NAMBLA's right to free speech. I think they're a bunch of sick individuals, but I feel like they have a right to say their peace. I suspect that most people agree with me. However, I would fully expect that if I made a sign advocating free speech and having NAMBLA symbols and nazi symbols that NO ONE would display it. And I'd agree with them.

You should expect people to tolerate all sexualities and gender identities. Not just expect, require. However, while I would love for people to endorse all sexualities and gender identities, you cannot make such an endorsement required. You simply can't.

A more inclusive poster would have gotten the job done in my opinion. However, I don't think you can require a teacher to make such a political statement no matter how right that statement is.

Fass, man ... I'm not "claiming" anything except that the damned poster is only making things worse. If the school would simply demand that everyone treat everyone else with the same respect they want for themselves, most of the problems would go away.
Oh yes, becaue school children give two shits what about what the school "demands" they do, especially when the school holds the same prejudices they do because they are their fucking children.

Somehow, we don't have a problem with homophobic bullying - or any bullying for that matter. It's a matter of telling the children that it won't be accepted in any form, for any reason, and the teachers will nail you for it.
Bullshit. Threatening will get you nowhere if the children are indoctrinated at home from the time they are born until that day.
At school: "We will not accept the harassment of homosexuals byu students."
At home: "Those fags need to get out of our school."

That is the parents mind you.

Question, why are these gays allowed to flaunt "gay pride" posters, when anything even remotely related to God is smashed by liberals? Have your "gay pride" if you want, but you better let me show my pride in my faith. As for the concept of homosexuality, it is wrong, immoral and disgusting, but it is no reason to kill or discriminate. However, gay marriage is wrong.

Our local school has a strict No Bullying policy regardless of the status of the victim.

Kids are told this the first week, every year. One act, and you go to "the farm", which is a school for bullies, essentially.

Somehow, we don't have a problem with homophobic bullying - or any bullying for that matter. It's a matter of telling the children that it won't be accepted in any form, for any reason, and the teachers will nail you for it.

Without any posters.

Maybe that school should institute the same policy. I bet the problem would go away.

It's much easier to fire a teacher for not enforcing a global no bullying policy.


Wish all schools were like that. At the school my kid brother goes to, they don't do a damn thing about bullying.

Fass, I don't agree that they should protest it because of religion. I think they should protest it being mandatory. Making it mandatory was a stupid idea. First of all, it makes it seem like not having it up is automatically a sign that intolerance is acceptable if you don't have it up rather than having the ability to simply say you don't like the poster.

I agree with the other poster that said it should have been a more inclusive poster that covers all forms of discrimination. We must recognize that many people object to the idea of gay pride on other grounds (comparing the Rainbow Coalition to the Black Panthers). Do you remember the huge argument that ensued from including S in the LGBTS army because some people don't feel like straights should be included.

Mandatory is always dangerous because if you make people feel like they are under attack they hunker down and prepare to defend. But if you approach them with tolerance for their views (but no tolerance for behavior that amounts to bigotry, as is the district policy already) and with an eye for educating them and changing things amicably this has a far greater effect.

To me forcing a poster that is about gay pride is like forcing them to display a poster telling saying that people saying be proud of your mixed race couple. People should be proud of their sexuality or gender identity no matter what it is. That should be the message and it seems like many felt the poster didn't send that message.

All that said, the religious argument the teachers made is pretty silly to me. I don't, however, think it would be inappropriate to ask for a poster that shows a more rounded view of tolerance rather than sticking out a particular issue.


as usual....well said Joc :)

Besides, almost 75% of public school kids are Christian, while about 2% are gay, yet they are far more protected then the majority. Where is the logic in that? You can't protect everybody.

Question, why are these gays allowed to flaunt "gay pride" posters, when anything even remotely related to God is smashed by liberals? Have your "gay pride" if you want, but you better let me show my pride in my faith. As for the concept of homosexuality, it is wrong, immoral and disgusting, but it is no reason to kill or discriminate. However, gay marriage is wrong.
How the fuck is it a gay pride poster?
You can get the fuck over your homophobia too.

Besides, almost 75% of public school kids are Christian, while about 2% are gay, yet they are far more protected then the majority. Where is the logic in that? You can't protect everybody.
The majority doesn't need protecting from themselves.


Go to the store, buy some gloves, and get a good grip on reality.

Our local school has a strict No Bullying policy regardless of the status of the victim.
Kids are told this the first week, every year. One act, and you go to "the farm", which is a school for bullies, essentially.
Somehow, we don't have a problem with homophobic bullying - or any bullying for that matter. It's a matter of telling the children that it won't be accepted in any form, for any reason, and the teachers will nail you for it.
Without any posters.
Maybe that school should institute the same policy. I bet the problem would go away.
It's much easier to fire a teacher for not enforcing a global no bullying policy.

Again, are there signs that they do not have one? And that this initiative detracts from it?

Just because you come into a hospital with a heart attack and a urinary tract infection, does not mean they are not into dealing with the latter just because the former requires and receives more urgent attention.

Again--this is only a school issue because of the refusal of these teachers. The program is a statewide one, if I read the original article correctly, and like all one-size-fits-all programs, is not meant to be the entire solution to a problem.
Then why did this one school have such issues about their attempts ( however ineffective ) to comply with the statewide program? Did none of the other schools involved have this degree of conflict? Did other schools use the "put-up-a-poster" approach to behavior change? If not, why not, and how did their attempts at compliance turn out? I smell a rat!

as usual....well said Joc :)

Ha. I completely rewrote it because I didn't agree that it was. ;)

Then why did this one school have such issues about their attempts ( however ineffective ) to comply with the statewide program? Did none of the other schools involved have this degree of conflict? Did other schools use the "put-up-a-poster" approach to behavior change? If not, why not, and how did their attempts at compliance turn out? I smell a rat!
Neither you nor Deep Kimchi read the article in the actual topic post did you? And you still havn't done it as far as I can tell, after I have repeatedly mentioned it. And it is a statewide program, they are only covering this school in the article because they are the ones with the severe homophobics; however, other schools are alluded to having to comply with everything going on.

For the benefit of everyone.

Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, "This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.

The high school's Gay-Straight Alliance designed the poster, which includes pink triangles and other symbols of gay pride. In December the school board approved a policy requiring all district teachers to hang the posters in their classrooms.

District officials said the poster is an effort to comply with state laws requiring schools to ensure students' safety and curb discrimination and harassment. They say that too often teachers do not reprimand students who use derogatory slurs or refer to homosexuality in a negative way.

"This is not about religion, sex, or a belief system,'' said district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the poster policy. "This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Teachers who refused to display the posters, which were distributed Monday, could not be reached for comment.

The school district has been embroiled in controversy over homosexuality in the past.

In 1997, a parents group at the high school demanded that a gay teacher be fired after she came out to her class. In 2002, high school English teacher Karl Debro settled a lawsuit with the district for $1 million after he was disciplined for giving a lecture on racism and homophobia. A judge declared unconstitutional a district policy banning "controversial issues" from the classroom without a principal's approval.

Art teacher Tom Laughlin, who is gay and who oversaw the poster's design by students in the Gay-Straight Alliance, said he was surprised by the level of intolerance for homosexuality that he perceived when he started teaching at the high school five years ago. He said he recognized that it was critical when a student called him a "fag."

"There was a real need to do this," he said. "A lot of students didn't know about gay people in general."

Efforts to change the district's culture with a no-tolerance approach to teasing and harassment of gay students and employees began in 2003 with the hiring of Lim. In addition to the poster policy, gay students have toured the district's schools speaking to teachers about the harassment they've encountered.

For the past two years, teachers have been required to attend annual three-hour sessions addressing the problems faced by gay and lesbian students in school and how to deal with students' homophobic comments.

This year's session was held Monday, during which the posters were distributed to district teachers.

San Leandro High computer science teacher Rick Styner put two of the posters up in his classroom, one by the entryway so it's the first thing students see upon entering the room.

"I'm glad that it gets out there instead of being hidden away like a secret,'' Styner said of any intolerance of homosexuality at the school. "As teachers, we have to address these things. Students start to feel unsafe in the classroom."

Another teacher at the high school -- who was not one of the five Furtado referred to -- said he did not intend to display the poster.

Business teacher Robert Volpa said he was out of town Monday and did not attend the training session and had not heard about the poster. He said, however, he would not put it up in his classroom even though he agrees with the message.

"I think it's outstanding. Any hate language is not permissible," he said. But he added, "I have a problem with the district mandating anything that could be political."

Furtado said she is confident that every teacher eventually will comply with the district mandate. She said she intends to work with those teachers who have refused to ensure they comply with the order.

"We work in a public school," she said. "I have no wish to change anyone's personal belief, but we want all kids to feel safe. That's where we have common ground."

Lim said she had not heard from any of the other schools in the district about whether teachers were refusing to display the posters.

One student at the high school said she hopes the posters will make gay students more comfortable with being honest about their sexuality.

Senior Susannah Keith, 17, said she felt isolated in the school district for years because she felt she could not approach her teachers or other students about being gay.

"It made me feel good to see them," she said of the posters. "It reminds you that gay and lesbian people are everywhere, so watch what you say and what you do and maybe change your attitude."

I don't know that they are, just saying that they could be,

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Irrelevant unless you have data to suggest otherwise.

You can get the fuck over your homophobia ...
A perfect example of what I was saying earlier of how the word "homophobia" is used, and what definition is most often applied to the word. This was obviously intended as an insult.

Neither you nor Deep Kimchi read the article in the actual topic post did you? And you still havn't done it as far as I can tell, after I have repeatedly mentioned it.
Yes, I have. Twice. Perhaps it would be helpful if you pointed out what you think I missed in the article, oh Great One.

So does not putting it up make him a bigot against homosexuals?


Reverse the roles in what you are saying... for example do all white supremacist have swastikas up somewhere in their house? If you don't have a confederate flag, swastikas, or KKK outfit in your house does that mean you are not a white supremacist?

Ok home vs classroom. See the difference?

Finally, how do you compare a sign or action to discourage bigotry vs stuff from a group that promotes bigotry.....

Ok, why is it okay to be gay, but it is "intolerant" to be Chrisitan? Stop catering to the minority, geez. By the way, if a teacher posted a Crucifix, it would be smashed by lawsuits. But gays are protected because of their minority status.

A perfect example of what I was saying earlier of how the word "homophobia" is used, and what definition is most often applied to the word. This was obviously intended as an insult.
Yes, saying he has an irrational aversion and contempt towards homosexuals is a terrible insult and I apologize.

In addition to the poster policy, gay students have toured the district's schools speaking to teachers about the harassment they've encountered.
Not to mention the fact that the article outlines numerous problems with this specific school, which is why it is starting shit and is getting the attention, since you asked that.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Irrelevant unless you have data to suggest otherwise.
Call it a suspicion.

Why should I fear gays anyway? Their lifestyle is wrong, but I dont grab Holy Water and call an exorcist every time I see one.

Yes, saying he has an irrational aversion and contempt towards homosexuals is a terrible insult and I apologize.
You didn't use the sarcastic smiley: :rolleyes:

Thanks for the apology BTW

Ok, why is it okay to be gay, but it is "intolerant" to be Chrisitan?

When the Christianity makes you intolerant it becomes not OK. Religion is not an excuse for bigotry.

Oh yes, becaue school children give two shits what about what the school "demands" they do, especially when the school holds the same prejudices they do because they are their fucking children.


Bullshit. Threatening will get you nowhere if the children are indoctrinated at home from the time they are born until that day.
At school: "We will not accept the harassment of homosexuals byu students."
At home: "Those fags need to get out of our school."

That is the parents mind you.

This is true of harassment of whites by blacks, blacks by whites, Atheists by Christians, Christians by Atheists, and Gays, Lesbians, Transgenders, Bisexuals by the none of the aboves. All of it is a problem and all of it happens as a result of ignorance of some form or another, most often passed down from the parents. The answer isn't to force your ideas on the offenders but to deal with their actions that are in violation of policy while educating them and hoping to break through the ignorance. However, if you force them into defending themselves, that's exactly what you'll get, a defence. The last thing you want is for these people to mount a defense. Look back at the backlask in women's rights, minority rights, etc. The world needs to change. No question. However, it needs to be changed through education and good will, not forcing people to pretend like they believe things they don't.

Thanks for the apology BTW
Yes, I should have used the sarcasm tags.

Call it a suspicion.

An unfounded one.

Thanks for the apology BTW
Knowing from experience with the poster in question, I strongly suspect he was being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

Then why did this one school have such issues about their attempts ( however ineffective ) to comply with the statewide program? Did none of the other schools involved have this degree of conflict? Did other schools use the "put-up-a-poster" approach to behavior change? If not, why not, and how did their attempts at compliance turn out? I smell a rat!
My guess--and this is only a guess--is that the teachers who refused made a stink and the principal wouldn't back down and it became a news story. I really doubt that if you went into every classroom in California where these posters are supposed to be up that you'd find them. My guess would be that there's a number of administrators who didn't follow up and make sure. But this one did, and he disciplined the teachers who didn't implement the program, and they objected to the discipline. Bingo! Story. It has all the elements--religious people claiming discrimination, the so-called gay agenda, state interference in local school issues, etc.

An unfounded one.
( shrug ) Perhaps.

Intolerance is a point of view. Killing everyone who is against you is inotellerant, but not permitting immoral practices to corrupt our gov't. If standing up for what is right makes me "intollerant", so be it.

Ok, why is it okay to be gay, but it is "intolerant" to be Chrisitan? Stop catering to the minority, geez. By the way, if a teacher posted a Crucifix, it would be smashed by lawsuits. But gays are protected because of their minority status.

Simple. Christians are intolerant to gays. The school wanted a zone of learning and felt that kids didn't need to be called "faggot" and what not by the Christians.

As to the Crucifix? Well the establishment clause says the goverment shall be Religious neutral. The public system is a goverment institution. Guess what that means.

Gays wouldn't need to be protected if you "christians" won't bother them.....

Their lifestyle is wrong

There is nothing wrong with my lifestyle. My fucking guys, and guys fucking me, has nothing to do with my lifestyle.

Intolerance is a point of view. Killing everyone who is against you is inotellerant, but not permitting immoral practices to corrupt our gov't. If standing up for what is right makes me "intollerant", so be it.

And that is why we have laws to protect people from you....

Neither you nor Deep Kimchi read the article in the actual topic post did you? And you still havn't done it as far as I can tell, after I have repeatedly mentioned it. And it is a statewide program, they are only covering this school in the article because they are the ones with the severe homophobics; however, other schools are alluded to having to comply with everything going on.

For the benefit of everyone.

Okay, if you're going to be rude, you better be right. The statewide program has NOTHING to do with the posters. The posters are a local way to comply with the program. The program you mention requires tolerance. It does not require posters be displayed in every classroom. Perhaps the reason this school is a problem is because the policy they chose made the teachers defensive rather than more educational policies of other districts. Can you name any other districts in the state that required a similar poster?

District officials said the poster is an effort to comply with state laws requiring schools to ensure students' safety and curb discrimination and harassment.

Now would you like to quote where it says the posters are a statewide policy? Because it appears to me that they directly said it was a poster designed within the school district.

( shrug ) Perhaps.

You lack reason for it. Thus, it is unfounded. Come on, are you going to make this difficult like you did a few posts ago?

Besides, you cannot protect everyone!!! The majority is Christian, so majority rules! That is how democracy is SUPPOSED to work, bnut the minority of liberals raises a fit overy minority rights, and someone was dumb enough to listen. DO NOT CATER TO THE MINORITY! If I was in a mostly Gay nation, I would expect gay practices! If I was in a Muslim nation, I would expect Muslim customs! Stop trying to protect everybopdy, by doing so you alienate the majority of people!
I was sincere BTW

My guess--and this is only a guess--is that the teachers who refused made a stink and the principal wouldn't back down and it became a news story. I really doubt that if you went into every classroom in California where these posters are supposed to be up that you'd find them. My guess would be that there's a number of administrators who didn't follow up and make sure. But this one did, and he disciplined the teachers who didn't implement the program, and they objected to the discipline. Bingo! Story. It has all the elements--religious people claiming discrimination, the so-called gay agenda, state interference in local school issues, etc.
The poster wasn't mandated, only compliance with State laws: "District officials said the poster is an effort to comply with state laws requiring schools to ensure students' safety and curb discrimination and harassment."

Expecting a poster to bear the weight of compliance with a law designed to insure the safety of students is idiocy.

The entire concept of democracy has been corrupted by the minority, dictatorship is the only proven Gov't strong enough to wistand the test of time!

not permitting immoral practices to corrupt our gov't.

There is nothing immoral about homosexuality.

How the fuck is it a gay pride poster?
You can get the fuck over your homophobia too.
because it's was created to protect only Homosexuals from harrasement. what about those who are differently abled? those of different race, color or religion? Look at the quoted article.
Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, "This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.

The high school's Gay-Straight Alliance designed the poster, which includes pink triangles and other symbols of gay pride. In December the school board approved a policy requiring all district teachers to hang the posters in their classrooms.

District officials said the poster is an effort to comply with state laws requiring schools to ensure students' safety and curb discrimination and harassment. They say that too often teachers do not reprimand students who use derogatory slurs or refer to homosexuality in a negative way.

"This is not about religion, sex, or a belief system,'' said district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the poster policy. "This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Teachers who refused to display the posters, which were distributed Monday, could not be reached for comment. funny the poster is only asking for understanding with Gay people, and not equality for all forms of discrimination.

The majority doesn't need protecting from themselves.but they sure can be bullied by any and all of the minorities... "you can't say this, can't do that, and how dare you share this... oh never mind that "minority group" can say, do and promote their lifestyles... you can't"

The entire concept of democracy has been corrupted by the minority, dictatorship is the only proven Gov't strong enough to wistand the test of time!

Oh, so you're just a troll. I suspected it, but then you provided this confirmation.

Besides, you cannot protect everyone!!! The majority is Christian, so majority rules! That is how democracy is SUPPOSED to work, bnut the minority of liberals raises a fit overy minority rights, and someone was dumb enough to listen. DO NOT CATER TO THE MINORITY! If I was in a mostly Gay nation, I would expect gay practices! If I was in a Muslim nation, I would expect Muslim customs! Stop trying to protect everybopdy, by doing so you alienate the majority of people!
I was sincere BTW

Then you are in the wrong country bub. We designed it so the "minority" would not have to live under the boot of the majority.

I really doubt you would accept gay practices or accept muslim practices.....

Besides, you cannot protect everyone!!! The majority is Christian, so majority rules! That is how democracy is SUPPOSED to work, bnut the minority of liberals raises a fit overy minority rights, and someone was dumb enough to listen. DO NOT CATER TO THE MINORITY! If I was in a mostly Gay nation, I would expect gay practices! If I was in a Muslim nation, I would expect Muslim customs! Stop trying to protect everybopdy, by doing so you alienate the majority of people!
I was sincere BTW

Wow, so sad that you are COMPLETELY unaware of the Constitution. The purpose of the amendments and the bill of rights is to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority. And the majority of Christians are embarassed to be associated with you. At least this Christian is.

funny the poster is only asking for understanding with Gay people, and not equality for all forms of discrimination.

So, as long a poster doesn't state something, it is OK? If it says "No smoking" that means I can urinate on the walls? I mean, it says nothing about urination. :rolleyes:

The entire concept of democracy has been corrupted by the minority, dictatorship is the only proven Gov't strong enough to wistand the test of time!


Ahhh you are a troll.

Wow, so sad that you are COMPLETELY unaware of the Constitution. The purpose of the amendments and the bill of rights is to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority. And the majority of Christians are embarassed to be associated with you. At least this Christian is.

It's a troll. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10296370&postcount=166) Leave it be.

You lack reason for it. Thus, it is unfounded. Come on, are you going to make this difficult like you did a few posts ago?
Awww! Do I frustrate you? Tsk! :D

I completely agree with the disciplinary action. School board policy trumps individual religious beliefs (which should be left at the door when a teacher steps into the classroom, anyway). If the teachers can't take it, they should quit so that teachers who can view all students equally can teach their classes instead.

Awww! Do I frustrate you? Tsk! :D

It's not frustration. It's an unwillingness to make you repeat yourself, like you do too much already.

When the Christianity makes you intolerant it becomes not OK. Religion is not an excuse for bigotry.
Guess what? I totally agree! Yayyy! :D

The world needs to change. No question. However, it needs to be changed through education and good will, not forcing people to pretend like they believe things they don't.
Eggggg-xactly! [ applauds ]

It's not frustration. It's an unwillingness to make you repeat yourself, like you do too much already.
ROFLMFAO!!! Touche, oh Fass the Great! :D

Eggggg-xactly! [ applauds ]
How is the poster forcing anyone to believe anything? It is promoting a standard of conduct, not of belief.

because it's was created to protect only Homosexuals from harrasement. what about those who are differently abled? those of different race, color or religion? Look at the quoted article.

funny the poster is only asking for understanding with Gay people, and not equality for all forms of discrimination.

but they sure can be bullied by any and all of the minorities... "you can't say this, can't do that, and how dare you share this... oh never mind that "minority group" can say, do and promote their lifestyles... you can't"

I agree that ALL discrimination for arbitrary reasons need to be discouraged. However is it also not fair to say that sometimes you need to target one thing more than the others if it is a current problem? Do not police put together task forces to deal with specific problems when they note a statistical rise in it?

The originating article fairly clearly lays out the groundwork that the issue of discrimination against homosexuality has been a specific problem in that specific school. The fact that some teachers refuse to be a part of a targetted effort to deal with this issue tends to make me believe that they MIGHT be part of the problem there, despite what PC platitudes to the contrary they might espouse.


I'm not saying that this IS the case. Just asking you to recognize the possibility instead of simply holding to your valid concern with all discrimination and any assumption that this poster somehow minimizes that effort.

I completely agree with the disciplinary action. School board policy trumps individual religious beliefs (which should be left at the door when a teacher steps into the classroom, anyway).
I'm going to save this comment and wait for a thread about how a teacher refuses to remove a head covering ( or perhaps refuses to teach on Sundays, or to not interrupt classes to pray five times a day, or any of a thousand other religious practices ) because it's against her or his religious beliefs, then quote it back to you.

The only problem I have with this is the administration forcing it in the classrooms. The teachers each made their classrooms unique putting up various things related to the topic of study. I mean it's well intentioned but would be just as effective to not force the teachers, make it an option for them and then also put them up in the hall ways, lunchrooms etc. That or they could encourage the students Gay-Straight Alliance to be more proactive. In my old highschool they had a day of silence.

It's a troll. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10296370&postcount=166) Leave it be.

Yes, I noticed that now. Good. I hate arguing both sides of an issue. I still hope that you can see what a bad idea it was to require this poster. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the laws are statewide and other schools had no problems with compliance. These posters are what generated the controversy and from what the article says I gather that they are more focused on gay pride than a broad tolerance. If you're looking to address the problem why force the issue when you could have easily created a poster that people would gladly display, one that accomplished the goal of the legislation and the goal of the administration.

I'm going to save this comment and wait for a thread about how a teacher refuses to remove a head covering ( or perhaps refuses to teach on Sundays, or to not interrupt classes to pray five times a day, or any of a thousand other religious practices ) because it's against her or his religious beliefs, then quote it back to you.
By "leaving religion at the door" I mean that their religious beliefs should not affect their conduct in the classroom. Refusing to teach on Sundays and interrupting class for prayer would certainly qualify as allowing your religion to interfere with your work; I don't see how the head covering would be an issue.

I don't get why we should have to be tolerante of people who get in our faces and flaunt their shit all over the place. We need to be able to bash them right back.

How is the poster forcing anyone to believe anything? It is promoting a standard of conduct, not of belief.
[ loses it and cusses a blue streak ] I don't give a flying rat's ass whether it's "forcing" anyone to do anything, or whether it's promoting anything or not!

THE DAMNED THING DOESN'T WORK!

All it has accomplished is to further alienate two already dissenting groups. This is NOT A GOOD THING! As a matter of fact, it totally defeats the stated purpose for its very existence.

Please, please, please explain to me what part of the above you don't understand!

[ loses it and cusses a blue streak ] I don't give a flying rat's ass whether it's "forcing" anyone to do anything, or whether it's promoting anything or not!

THE DAMNED THING DOESN'T WORK!

All it has accomplished is to further alienate two already dissenting groups. This is NOT A GOOD THING! As a matter of fact, it totally defeats the stated purpose for its very existence.

Please, please, please explain to me what part of the above you don't understand!
I'm not saying it works. Who cares if it works? That isn't the issue. The issue is whether teachers have the right to refuse to put it up; I say no.

So a teacher gets disciplined for now displaying a rainbow banner, but nothing has heppened to this asshole teacher? Life just amazes me sometimes...

i think that story is hillarious, it was all in fun, the kid needs to grow up and grow a backbone. its high school, things like that happened all the time in my high school. get a sense of humor, and stop your bitching.

and about this whole tolerance thing, Who says tolerance is a good thing?, tolerance can be bad, you have to set limits, but anyways onto the story this thread was created for.

i support the teachers, if they are in charge of their classroom setting and dont want that poster in the classroom, then they shouldnt have to put it in there, but if they were putting poster up that were ment to offend people, thats a completly different topic. i think this is an absurd story, i didnt really read were this was taking place but i have one guess that is probably pretty close (Americas retard capital) California.

How is the poster forcing anyone to believe anything? It is promoting a standard of conduct, not of belief.

It has Gay Pride symbols. It most certainly promotes a belief. If one were promoting tolerance for Muslims (a necessary act right after 9/11 as most teachers would tell you) this would not be an excuse for creating posters to promote being muslim. It's actually reasoning for creating posters to be tolerant of all religious beliefs and ethnicities. I suspect this would a different conversation if this was a poster with Muslim symbols on it.

By "leaving religion at the door" I mean that their religious beliefs should not affect their conduct in the classroom. Refusing to teach on Sundays and interrupting class for prayer would certainly qualify as allowing your religion to interfere with your work; I don't see how the head covering would be an issue.
Uh ... if your religion doesn't affect your conduct, wherever you might be, then it's no religion at all. Some call this "hypocrisy."

It has Gay Pride symbols. It most certainly promotes a belief. If one were promoting tolerance for Muslims (a necessary act right after 9/11 as most teachers would tell you) this would not be an excuse for creating posters to promote being muslim. It's actually reasoning for creating posters to be tolerant of all religious beliefs and ethnicities. I suspect this would a different conversation if this was a poster with Muslim symbols on it.
No, it is promoting a safe environment for homosexuals. It isn't saying that they aren't sinners and that they won't go to hell when they die; it's what they experience in the classroom that the poster is concerned with.

I'm not saying it works. Who cares if it works? That isn't the issue. The issue is whether teachers have the right to refuse to put it up; I say no.
So let's just all go with whatever we happen to believe "should" and/or "should not" happen, and practicality and effectiveness and actually accomplishing change for the better be damned! Yayyy! Perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Sometimes I totally despair of ever seeing things change. Sigh.

[ loses it and cusses a blue streak ] I don't give a flying rat's ass whether it's "forcing" anyone to do anything, or whether it's promoting anything or not!

THE DAMNED THING DOESN'T WORK!

All it has accomplished is to further alienate two already dissenting groups. This is NOT A GOOD THING! As a matter of fact, it totally defeats the stated purpose for its very existence.

Please, please, please explain to me what part of the above you don't understand!


So, if you can't even MENTION discrimination without making things worse, how the hell do you suggest that a school should deal with it if it is an ongoing problem?

Just close their eyes and hope that the gays don't get beat up tooo much or something?

isnt it hilarious, people cry for freedom of speech, and they bitch about this?

this is like the opposite, this is not speaking, this is not showing. damn, some people will never be happy unless their bitching about something

So, if you can't even MENTION discrimination without making things worse, how the hell do you suggest that a school should deal with it if it is an ongoing problem?

Just close their eyes and hope that the gays don't get beat up tooo much or something?
I will be damned! Have you actually read any of my earlier posts? You do realize that reading just one post in a thread of this length won't give you any comprehension of what has gone before, don't you?

So, if you can't even MENTION discrimination without making things worse, how the hell do you suggest that a school should deal with it if it is an ongoing problem?

Just close their eyes and hope that the gays don't get beat up tooo much or something?

the only solution to acceptance is time, it takes time to accept new things into your culture

The poster wasn't mandated, only compliance with State laws: "District officials said the poster is an effort to comply with state laws requiring schools to ensure students' safety and curb discrimination and harassment."

Expecting a poster to bear the weight of compliance with a law designed to insure the safety of students is idiocy.
*Nods in agreement*

I wonder how many classrooms with this new poster displayed, had this student thinking.

"wow... so there's a faggot in this class... I didn't know that.... I wonder who it could be?"

Uh ... if your religion doesn't affect your conduct, wherever you might be, then it's no religion at all. Some call this "hypocrisy."
I disagree, but I think that is because you are defining religious conduct too broadly. By your definition, both helping a student in need and preaching the word of Jesus Christ in the classroom could both be defined as religious conduct. I would consider the former to be a behavior that may have been learned in part through religion, but not a religious behavior in and of itself; even athiests can be nice to people, believe it or not.

So let's just all go with whatever we happen to believe "should" and/or "should not" happen, and practicality and effectiveness and actually accomplishing change for the better be damned! Yayyy! Perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Sometimes I totally despair of ever seeing things change. Sigh.
You misunderstand. The poster's efficacy is not what is in question. It is whether the teachers can or cannot refuse to put it up on the basis of religious beliefs. If they had refused on the basis that it was a retarded idea, that would be another issue entirely.

*Nods in agreement*

I wonder how many classrooms with this new poster displayed, had this student thinking.

"wow... so there's a faggot in this class... I didn't know that.... I wonder who it could be?"
Does it matter? As long as the poster is a part of--and pay attention to that--a part of the school's efforts to let the gay community at the school know that they're protected, then what the kids muse on as a result of the poster is pretty irrelevant.

If it was really about tolerence, then why have a flag loaded with gay symbols? I've seen Catholics treated poorly--no crucifix on the fag, I've seen huntsmen treated poorly--no severed and mounted deer heads on the flag, I've seen fat kids teased--no images of Doritos on the flag...

Besdides, if the flag is put up against the teachers' will, then nobody will know which teachers are actually "safe" to talk to about stuff...

Does it matter? As long as the poster is a part of--and pay attention to that--a part of the school's efforts to let the gay community at the school know that they're protected, then what the kids muse on as a result of the poster is pretty irrelevant.

i dont think the poster says anyhting about protection, im pretty sure it doesnt advertise a safe room in the basement of the school for gays.

all the poster really does is try and force the opinions of the posters creaters on everyone else, and doesnt the ACLU hate it when people force opinions on other people?

oh thats right, only if the opinions are against their own.

If it was really about tolerence, then why have a flag loaded with gay symbols? I've seen Catholics treated poorly--no crucifix on the fag, I've seen huntsmen treated poorly--no severed and mounted deer heads on the flag, I've seen fat kids teased--no images of Doritos on the flag...

Besdides, if the flag is put up against the teachers' will, then nobody will know which teachers are actually "safe" to talk to about stuff...
I totally agree that the flag is not all-inclusive and that this debacle over it will make it counterproductive to whatever aims it was supposed to achieve. Regardless, teachers refusing to put it up and citing their own religious beliefs as the reason is the issue at hand, and they deserve to be punished for it.

i have one guess that is probably pretty close (Americas retard capital) California.

There there kitten. Don't hurt yourself.....

isnt it hilarious, people cry for freedom of speech, and they bitch about this?

this is like the opposite, this is not speaking, this is not showing. damn, some people will never be happy unless their bitching about something

Ok what are you taling about? Take a deep breath and try again....

I totally agree that the flag is not all-inclusive and that this debacle over it will make it counterproductive to whatever aims it was supposed to achieve. Regardless, teachers refusing to put it up and citing their own religious beliefs as the reason is the issue at hand, and they deserve to be punished for it.

should we punish people for not flying the American flag?, or for not putting a picture of the president up in the classroom?

now i could of gone extreme here but i didnt, i want you to explain in detail why they should be punished.

If it was really about tolerence, then why have a flag loaded with gay symbols? I've seen Catholics treated poorly--no crucifix on the fag, I've seen huntsmen treated poorly--no severed and mounted deer heads on the flag, I've seen fat kids teased--no images of Doritos on the flag...

Besdides, if the flag is put up against the teachers' will, then nobody will know which teachers are actually "safe" to talk to about stuff...

Hmmmm nice strawman you have there. Needs a little work but good at it's initial build.

Ok what are you taling about? Take a deep breath and try again....

explanation, im betting most of these people are the same people that will be balling theirs eyes out if they were told they couldnt do something, or they couldnt say something. but now they are crying because they are doing something but some people dont want to be a part of it.

I had glasses from the time I was in kindergarten and I was a Jehovah's Witness. Top that! :D

Oh yeah--I had asthma and carried an inhaler too.

Asthmatic Jewish foster kid with glasses, cerebral palsy and a severe speech imediment.

so--ha!

Asthmatic Jewish foster kid with glasses, cerebral palsy and a severe speech imediment.

so--ha!
OMG!

You need: :fluffle:

Hmmmm nice strawman you have there. Needs a little work but good at it's initial build.

Hmmm...wasn't actually building a strawman, but thanks for the compliment.

I still stand by my statement that if those "safe place" posters are displayed in places that aren't "safe places," they are meaningless.

Even though it could be claimed it was part of an Anti-discrimination campaign against Christians?

If we can't have Christian posters as part of an Anti-discrimination campaign then we shouldn't allow for gay posters as part of an anti-discrimination campaign.

Fair is fair as momma always says.

With the exception that it violates the law to promote any one religion over another in a public school. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue so there's no reason to even ponder your question. Besides, your confusing a religious issue with a social issue. It is unlawful for someone in the public domain to violate the seperation powers as is prescribed by law. Further, the teachers may keep their own religous beliefs personal to themselves, they may not impose it upon their classes. Not putting up the poster indicates that they object for religous reasons and is hereby subjugating the children to their particular political/religous belief. Furthermore, their objection is a violation of state law and is considered insubordination. gay=social issue christianity posters=religous issue. Do you see the line of distinction?

How the fuck is it a gay pride poster?
You can get the fuck over your homophobia too.
I have to admit.. you are the most intolerant person I have ever met.

should we punish people for not flying the American flag?, or for not putting a picture of the president up in the classroom?

now i could of gone extreme here but i didnt, i want you to explain in detail why they should be punished.
I've already explained my position. Teachers should be punished for not flying the American flag or putting a picture of a president in their classroom if their superiors instruct them to do so and the teachers do not present a valid secular argument against it.

When the Christianity makes you intolerant it becomes not OK. Religion is not an excuse for bigotry.

I agree with this statement.

The bible does say to love thy neighbor as thyself or something like that. It also says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Bigotry shouldn't cloud one's judgement.

Simple. Christians are intolerant to gays. The school wanted a zone of learning and felt that kids didn't need to be called "faggot" and what not by the Christians.

As to the Crucifix? Well the establishment clause says the goverment shall be Religious neutral. The public system is a goverment institution. Guess what that means.

Gays wouldn't need to be protected if you "christians" won't bother them.....

Are you calling all christians intolerant to gays?

You can get the fuck over your homophobia too.


i really hate that term for a couple of reasons

1. it kind of emplies your scared of them, from the majority of people i know that have been called this term, their not scared of them, they just dislike.

2. its one of those terms like "nazi", when someone cant win an argument they break out this term.

3. even if it is a term to describe a fear, it would be like Arachnophobia. these terms arnt supposed to be negative, you dont go up to someone and say "your a bad person you have Arachnophobia". if it is a varified term that psychologist use to note someone has a fear of homosexuals, then it shouldnt really be a neggative, but people have turned it negative.

There is nothing immoral about homosexuality.

This can be debatable however, I like you Fass :)

With the exception that it violates the law to promote any one religion over another in a public school. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue so there's no reason to even ponder your question. Besides, your confusing a religious issue with a social issue. It is unlawful for someone in the public domain to violate the seperation powers as is prescribed by law. Further, the teachers may keep their own religous beliefs personal to themselves, they may not impose it upon their classes. Not putting up the poster indicates that they object for religous reasons and is hereby subjugating the children to their particular political/religous belief. Furthermore, their objection is a violation of state law and is considered insubordination. gay=social issue christianity posters=religous issue. Do you see the line of distinction?

Go back and read ALL of my comments please. :)

Definitely not the way to go about it. You're going to change attitudes about homosexuality by mandating that everyone fly the gay flag? Good luck. Don't think that will work, even in San Franscisco.

i dont think the poster says anyhting about protection, im pretty sure it doesnt advertise a safe room in the basement of the school for gays.

all the poster really does is try and force the opinions of the posters creaters on everyone else, and doesnt the ACLU hate it when people force opinions on other people?

oh thats right, only if the opinions are against their own.
The poster says, "This is a safe place to be who you are," i.e. you are protected by the school administration. There's no forcing of opinions there. But then again, I don't imagine you actually read the article from the beginning of the thread--you just wanted to jump in full force on the ACLU or some other boogeyman.

Definitely not the way to go about it. You're going to change attitudes about homosexuality by mandating that everyone fly the gay flag? Good luck. Don't think that will work, even in San Franscisco.
Where is anyone even suggesting that that's being mandated?

The poster says, "This is a safe place to be who you are," i.e. you are protected by the school administration. There's no forcing of opinions there. But then again, I don't imagine you actually read the article from the beginning of the thread--you just wanted to jump in full force on the ACLU or some other boogeyman.

it says its a safe place but it doesnt offer protection, if a white guy is walking through harlem while its dark and sees a sign saying this is a safe place, does he feel more comfortable?

and the ACLU needs to be attacked, it needs to be shut down. i guess its only ok to attack organizations if its a conservative organization

it says its a safe place but it doesnt offer protection, if a white guy is walking through harlem while its dark and sees a sign saying this is a safe place, does he feel more comfortable?Yeah, because that's a reasonable analogy. :rolleyes:

Let me use small words so you'll have a better shot at understanding this: School put up posters, so school stand behind posters. Gay students think "if homophobe threaten me, school back me up." Got it?

and the ACLU needs to be attacked, it needs to be shut down. i guess its only ok to attack organizations if its a conservative organizationWell, I haven't attacked any conservative organizations on this thread (not even the Republican party, not that they're conservative these days), but I guess you can ask all those Republicans that the ACLU has
defended over the years if they appreciated the help. Hell, maybe you could ask former Congressman Bob Barr--a conservative from Georgia who works for them now.

Just a suggestion--when you pull your head out of your ass, there's a lot more light for you to see by.

Yeah, because that's a reasonable analogy. :rolleyes:

Let me use small words so you'll have a better shot at understanding this: School put up posters, so school stand behind posters. Gay students think "if homophobe threaten me, school back me up." Got it?
nope
still says nothing about protection, its says its a safe place, that doesnt stop someone from attacking you, hell look at prisons, guards everywhere, people get killed in prison.

Well, I haven't attacked any conservative organizations on this thread (not even the Republican party, not that they're conservative these days), but I guess you can ask all those Republicans that the ACLU has
defended over the years if they appreciated the help. Hell, maybe you could ask former Congressman Bob Barr--a conservative from Georgia who works for them now.

i dont care if they appreciate it, i dont care if anyone else appreciates it, what i care about is what the ACLU does for me, and at the moment nothing, not only that but what it does for the majority. the ACLU concetrates on the minority which by doing that they send lawyers in and in effect make being a minority better then being a majority.

Just a suggestion--when you pull your head out of your ass, there's a lot more light for you to see by.

let me guess, ACLU lawyer?, or somehow working for them?

No, it is promoting a safe environment for homosexuals. It isn't saying that they aren't sinners and that they won't go to hell when they die; it's what they experience in the classroom that the poster is concerned with.

It has Gay Pride symbols. Not Gay is ok symbols. Gay Pride. This says you endorse the idea of being proud of being Gay (something I, in fact endorse). This is not the same as saying that all sexualities and gender identities deserve to feel safe and deserve equal protection under the law. The two concepts are vastly different. You can keep screaming it promotes a safe environment but in practice it didn't. It pushed these teachers into feeling a need to provide a defense and they did. Other practices that promote equality have proven much more effective than practices that focus on a particular sexuality.

I've already explained my position. Teachers should be punished for not flying the American flag or putting a picture of a president in their classroom if their superiors instruct them to do so and the teachers do not present a valid secular argument against it.

That's false. Teachers are allowed to be religious people so long as they don't force their religion on others. You could order teachers to discuss the new Kanye West cover on Rolling Stone and I would fully defend their right to tell the administration to go take a flying leap. This poster requires them to endorse Gay Pride not just endorse tolerance of other positions.

nope
still says nothing about protection, its says its a safe place, that doesnt stop someone from attacking you, hell look at prisons, guards everywhere, people get killed in prison.

Now the school's a prison? They did back up the posters. In fact, that's my primary argument for why they're unnecessary. There is a lot of evidence that the school has become a safer place. They aren't just putting up posters so perhaps you should actually read the article where it informs you of this.

Moreover, his comments directly point out that the school does offer protection to which you reply, "uh, duh, still says nothing about protection." You can say it doesn't offer protection but you can't say he didn't mention it. You're arguments get more ridiculous by the moment.

i dont care if they appreciate it, i dont care if anyone else appreciates it, what i care about is what the ACLU does for me, and at the moment nothing, not only that but what it does for the majority. the ACLU concetrates on the minority which by doing that they send lawyers in and in effect make being a minority better then being a majority.

False. You clearly have no idea what the ACLU does. They often defend the majority. Were this a thread about the ACLU I could cite you cases all day. But since you're just trolling this thread, I don't think I'll bother.

let me guess, ACLU lawyer?, or somehow working for them?

Amusing what passes for an insult in some circles. Amusing and sad.

It has Gay Pride symbols. Not Gay is ok symbols. Gay Pride. This says you endorse the idea of being proud of being Gay (something I, in fact endorse). This is not the same as saying that all sexualities and gender identities deserve to feel safe and deserve equal protection under the law. The two concepts are vastly different. You can keep screaming it promotes a safe environment but in practice it didn't. It pushed these teachers into feeling a need to provide a defense and they did. Other practices that promote equality have proven much more effective than practices that focus on a particular sexuality.

Amen.

nope
still says nothing about protection, its says its a safe place, that doesnt stop someone from attacking you, hell look at prisons, guards everywhere, people get killed in prison.
Do you try to make up asinine bullshit or does it come naturally?

because it's was created to protect only Homosexuals from harrasement. what about those who are differently abled? those of different race, color or religion? Look at the quoted article.
Bullshit. Yes, it was designed primarily for homosexuals, but it does not say: "You are gay, don't hide it" or "It is ok to be gay." No. It says "This is a safe place for you to be who you are." That conveys no dedication to any particular system.

let me guess, ACLU lawyer?, or somehow working for them?
Jocabia handled the rest, so I'll just let you know that no, I don't work for them and I'm not a lawyer--just a dues paying member. And if I had a card, I'd carry it with pride.

Do you try to make up asinine bullshit or does it come naturally?


Bullshit. Yes, it was designed primarily for homosexuals, but it does not say: "You are gay, don't hide it" or "It is ok to be gay." No. It says "This is a safe place for you to be who you are." That conveys no dedication to any particular system.

If the words were all it had I would totally agree. I agree with the sentiment they were going for. The mistake was two-fold: One, the made it mandatory which in a tender situation like that is stooooo-pid. Two, they put what are clearly gay pride symbols. Again, they should have used symbols the promote tolerance of all sexualities and gender identities, not pride in them. I agree with the poster and probably would have hung it up (I don't know for sure without seeing it), but we're not talking about what I think, we're talking about what we can and cannot force a teacher to endorse by displaying it in their classroom.

Maybe the Teacher has a phobia of Bungle or that feared that the schoolkids wouldnt know who bungle, Zippy, George and Geoffrey are

i say YAY to these teachers. why do i say yay? i'm SICK of hearing about little 8-year-old kids in this country (USA) coming home from school. so, Billy, what did you learn today? well, i learned how to sodomize the right way. and i learned that it's good. and it's normal.

you know what? it's going too far. and how come they get to claim the rainbow. now i can't do anything with rainbows without people thinking i'm gay! yay to these teachers. hooray!

Vegetarianistica']i say YAY to these teachers. why do i say yay? i'm SICK of hearing about little 8-year-old kids in this country (USA) coming home from school. so, Billy, what did you learn today? well, i learned how to sodomize the right way. and i learned that it's good. and it's normal.

you know what? it's going too far. and how come they get to claim the rainbow. now i can't do anything with rainbows without people thinking i'm gay! yay to these teachers. hooray!

Are you kidding? Sodomy would never be taught in schools. They have such a heart attack about teaching sex ed(which is defined as the reproductive system and STDs) in the first place.

Vegetarianistica']i say YAY to these teachers. why do i say yay? i'm SICK of hearing about little 8-year-old kids in this country (USA) coming home from school. so, Billy, what did you learn today? well, i learned how to sodomize the right way. and i learned that it's good. and it's normal.

you know what? it's going too far. and how come they get to claim the rainbow. now i can't do anything with rainbows without people thinking i'm gay! yay to these teachers. hooray!

Uh-huh. Because if someone thought you were gay they might treat you with the same discrimination and bile you heap on gay people? You'd hate that wouldn't you. Perhaps if you treated LGBTs equally, you wouldn't have to worry that someone might think you're gay, because no one will care and it will be no one's business but your own. Wouldn't that be nice? If our sexualities could just be a matter for ourselves and our partners and not for political debate? I know I'd be happy because there would be no reason for you to spout out such ridiculous quips like the above.

Methinks thou dost protest too much - William Shakespeare

Dear God, what if they reali... I mean, think I'm gay - paraphrase of Veg

This can be debatable however, I like you Fass :)

That is not debatable at all. Homosexuality is as immoral as heterosexuality. I.e. it isn't.

First off, I think the flags are a bad idea. I doubt very seriously that they will have their intended effect. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the armchair-psychology tactic of putting up signs that say, "Be who you are," or, "Self-esteem is great!" or whatever else they like to put up in schools helps anyone at all. Meanwhile, you run into the issue that, by putting up signs specifically targetting the LGBT students, you have singled them out. You have made it look as if they need special coddling - something that will almost certainly be a source of derision from other students, even if they don't actually have anything against gays. Imagine if you put up a sign that said, "Girls should be proud to be girls!" Such a sign could draw quite a bit of derision from guys.

So, basically, I think the flags are unnecessary at best, and counterproductive at worst. If they want to promote a safe atmosphere for LGBT students, then they need to make sure (as they seem to have been doing) that teachers know how to deal with the issues that will come up. They need to punish students who make homophobic comments in the same manner as they would punish students who made racist or mysoginistic comments. Putting up a "feel happy," sign isn't going to accomplish much, if anything.

However, unless there is something inherently illegal or unethical about the flags, I don't think the teachers have a "right" to refuse to have them in the classroom, for several reasons. First off, the teacher does not have any type of ownership over the classroom. The classroom belongs to the school - and thus to the public - and the teacher is simply assigned to do his job in it. Thus, if the public decides that a certain symbol (which is not, in and of itself, illegal) must be displayed in class, the teacher has no more say in it than any other member of the public (although I think it is wise to listen to what teachers have to say when making decisions like this). If the school board decided that there has to be a picture of George Washington in every classroom, and a science teacher objected that Washington has nothing to do with science, the teacher wouldn't be able to take it down without whatever punishment had been devised for teachers who wouldn't display it. Of course, unless the rules specifically stated that he could not, he could leave it up, but tell his students that he found it unnecessary.

Now, if the teacher objects to the flags because she thinks they will be ineffective or counterproductive, she should say so. And, if she feels strongly enough that they will cause problems, she should certainly refuse to have it in the classroom in which she teaches. But unless the school board/whoever is in charge agrees with her, she is subject to whatever disciplinary action they wish to take - as she is their employee and is on their property.

As for teachers refusing to display them because of religious reasons, that's great. There is no legal recourse at all for them. They can certainly refuse on that basis, and they can also either quit or be handed their pink slips. And they can be proud of the loss of their jobs over their beliefs. Either that, or they can be happy with their personal beliefs, but still do the job, even if it includes flying a flag designed to make LGBT students feel comfortable.

First off, I think the flags are a bad idea. I doubt very seriously that they will have their intended effect. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the armchair-psychology tactic of putting up signs that say, "Be who you are," or, "Self-esteem is great!" or whatever else they like to put up in schools helps anyone at all. Meanwhile, you run into the issue that, by putting up signs specifically targetting the LGBT students, you have singled them out. You have made it look as if they need special coddling - something that will almost certainly be a source of derision from other students, even if they don't actually have anything against gays. Imagine if you put up a sign that said, "Girls should be proud to be girls!" Such a sign could draw quite a bit of derision from guys.

So, basically, I think the flags are unnecessary at best, and counterproductive at worst. If they want to promote a safe atmosphere for LGBT students, then they need to make sure (as they seem to have been doing) that teachers know how to deal with the issues that will come up. They need to punish students who make homophobic comments in the same manner as they would punish students who made racist or mysoginistic comments. Putting up a "feel happy," sign isn't going to accomplish much, if anything.

However, unless there is something inherently illegal or unethical about the flags, I don't think the teachers have a "right" to refuse to have them in the classroom, for several reasons. First off, the teacher does not have any type of ownership over the classroom. The classroom belongs to the school - and thus to the public - and the teacher is simply assigned to do his job in it. Thus, if the public decides that a certain symbol (which is not, in and of itself, illegal) must be displayed in class, the teacher has no more say in it than any other member of the public (although I think it is wise to listen to what teachers have to say when making decisions like this). If the school board decided that there has to be a picture of George Washington in every classroom, and a science teacher objected that Washington has nothing to do with science, the teacher wouldn't be able to take it down without whatever punishment had been devised for teachers who wouldn't display it. Of course, unless the rules specifically stated that he could not, he could leave it up, but tell his students that he found it unnecessary.

Now, if the teacher objects to the flags because she thinks they will be ineffective or counterproductive, she should say so. And, if she feels strongly enough that they will cause problems, she should certainly refuse to have it in the classroom in which she teaches. But unless the school board/whoever is in charge agrees with her, she is subject to whatever disciplinary action they wish to take - as she is their employee and is on their property.

As for teachers refusing to display them because of religious reasons, that's great. There is no legal recourse at all for them. They can certainly refuse on that basis, and they can also either quit or be handed their pink slips. And they can be proud of the loss of their jobs over their beliefs. Either that, or they can be happy with their personal beliefs, but still do the job, even if it includes flying a flag designed to make LGBT students feel comfortable.

I agree with all of that except they didn't just put up the posters, they ordered the teachers to do it. The difference is not very subtle. If you treat a teacher as if she or he owns a classroom expect them to act as such. Asking them to put up the posters in 'their' classroooms does exactly that.

Uh-huh. Because if someone thought you were gay they might treat you with the same discrimination and bile you heap on gay people? You'd hate that wouldn't you.

people are *ssholes no matter what i am or am not. what i care about is when the issue goes too far, which i think it often does. and btw, Jocabia, you're gay. :)

Vegetarianistica']people are *ssholes no matter what i am or am not. what i care about is when the issue goes too far, which i think it often does. and btw, Jocabia, you're gay. :)

Thanks for caring about my sexuality.

And if you really thought people are people no matter what then why the comment about how you can't use rainbows anymore without worrying that people will think you're gay? Is it because what they think matters? If so, why does it matter? It shouldn't, but it does because people heap discrimination on people based on their sexuality and gender identity and we allow it. You post is part of the problem.

Vegetarianistica']

you know what? it's going too far. and how come they get to claim the rainbow. now i can't do anything with rainbows without people thinking i'm gay! yay to these teachers. hooray!

The only rainbow I claim is the DSOTM prism. It's cool. The gay pride rainbow sucks ass (one might say that it's gay). You can have it.

I agree with all of that except they didn't just put up the posters, they ordered the teachers to do it. The difference is not very subtle. If you treat a teacher as if she or he owns a classroom expect them to act as such. Asking them to put up the posters in 'their' classroooms does exactly that.

The difference between them is only non-subtle because, when the teacher refused, they didn't just have another employee do it. The teachers were at this conference thing - so it made sense to give them the posters and say, "Put these up when you get back. They're going in all the classrooms." The first course of action for the school when some teachers refused should have been to have someone else put it up in the classroom. Then, if the teacher took it down, there would be a problem.

As usual, the issue is probably being blow way out of proportion on both sides, instead of looking for a way around it. *sigh*

The difference between them is only non-subtle because, when the teacher refused, they didn't just have another employee do it. The teachers were at this conference thing - so it made sense to give them the posters and say, "Put these up when you get back. They're going in all the classrooms." The first course of action for the school when some teachers refused should have been to have someone else put it up in the classroom. Then, if the teacher took it down, there would be a problem.

As usual, the issue is probably being blow way out of proportion on both sides, instead of looking for a way around it. *sigh*

I would say my issue with the posters is that they don't seem to merely settle at promoting equality and tolerance. It's a fine line. They seem to promote pride which in my mind crosses the line of what you can require support for.

While I would fight for a person's right to be proud of who they are and would fight against anyone that suggests they shouldn't be, I do not think it fair to require someone else to support that pride.

Wouldn't that be nice? If our sexualities could just be a matter for ourselves and our partners and not for political debate?
Yes it would. Which is my entire point. Why polarize people unnecessarily with something as innane as a frakking poster? If you're hell bent on polarizing people at least have the good sense to do it over something of importance, like the abuse of someone simply because he or she is gay.

You can't teach empathy. Sympathy can, however, be learned. Where my own sympathy comes from is having known several gay people who told me about the almost incredible abuse they suffered in high school and elsewhere. It's just plain wrong. But confrontational actions only serve to give those in opposition more grist for their mill. What works is person to person and uniform enforcement of the standards of behavior.

I would say my issue with the posters is that they don't seem to merely settle at promoting equality and tolerance. It's a fine line. They seem to promote pride which in my mind crosses the line of what you can require support for.

While I would fight for a person's right to be proud of who they are and would fight against anyone that suggests they shouldn't be, I do not think it fair to require someone else to support that pride.

I'm iffy on that. The actual message on it just seems to be, "Be who you are." It's kind of like having a rainbow poster that said, "Self-esteem" on it. It isn't like, "Be proud to be gay!" or "Gay power!" My guess is that they chose traditional "gay pride" symbols more to demonstrably target the LGBT population than to actually try and invoke pride.

If someone were, for instance, to do the same thing for foreign students, they might cover it in flags from different countries and write the exact same thing at the bottom. Or, if they wanted to do it for Native Americans, they might put pictures of things commonly associated with Native Americans with the words at the bottom.

Of course, there is the issue that the whole term "gay pride" is a bit of a misnomer. The message of pride parades and symbols and such is not, "Be proud of being gay," which wouldn't make any more sense than, "Be proud to be white," or "Be proud to have blue eyes," but is, instead, "Don't be ashamed of being gay," which is pretty much the message I think they were trying to get accross here.

I'm iffy on that. The actual message on it just seems to be, "Be who you are." It's kind of like having a rainbow poster that said, "Self-esteem" on it. It isn't like, "Be proud to be gay!" or "Gay power!" My guess is that they chose traditional "gay pride" symbols more to demonstrably target the LGBT population than to actually try and invoke pride.

If someone were, for instance, to do the same thing for foreign students, they might cover it in flags from different countries and write the exact same thing at the bottom. Or, if they wanted to do it for Native Americans, they might put pictures of things commonly associated with Native Americans with the words at the bottom.

See, but that's a great example. If it showed flags from bunches of different countries, that would be great. But what if it showed just a flag from Ireland and it was required that all teachers put up that poster? This the problem, it doesn't seem to have sought to express equality in the poster itself, which I think is where these people find justification in denying the poster. An easy solution was (but it's no longer available) to simply not require the poster in classrooms but encourage it and then post the posters in all common areas. The obvious message is that the school is on your side while not pressuring those that find issue with the poster's unintended message (I doubt many find issue with the poster's intended message). This fight is a game of inches and the people who made and promoted this poster tried to take the entire field when they were already winning and steadily gaining ground.

Of course, there is the issue that the whole term "gay pride" is a bit of a misnomer. The message of pride parades and symbols and such is not, "Be proud of being gay," which wouldn't make any more sense than, "Be proud to be white," or "Be proud to have blue eyes," but is, instead, "Don't be ashamed of being gay," which is pretty much the message I think they were trying to get accross here.

And I think that is where the problem lies. Because while some would promote the idea of equality of all sexualities and gender identities, others take the message very differently because it is poorly framed.

With the LGBTS army there was a long argument about whether the S can and should stand for straight because straights don't deserve to be represented in such a fight. However, you either fight for equality or you don't.

Yes, homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders need to be raised to the level of tolerance, rights and respect that heterosexuals enjoy, but it truly needs to be clear to all concerned that the effort is to raise the level of homosexual, bisexual and transgenders treatment not lower the level of heterosexuals treatment.

I think the effort is very clearly seeking to raise on level to meet the other, but it has to be clear to everyone or there will always be those who are currently in the majority who will seek to defend their territory. The clearer we make it that they aren't losing ground the less need the feel to protect the imaginary groung they aren't losing.

The more even-handed the response to the problem is, the less reason we give people to cry foul. Now, some will always cry foul, but let's give as little justification as possible. Equality does exactly that. It minimizes the reasons for crying foul.

See, but that's a great example. If it showed flags from bunches of different countries, that would be great. But what if it showed just a flag from Ireland and it was required that all teachers put up that poster? This the problem, it doesn't seem to have sought to express equality in the poster itself, which I think is where these people find justification in denying the poster.
But that isn't why they are opposed to it.

They oppose the poster because they are opposed to homosexuality, which just goes back to why they have to have a poster in the first place