Monday, December 17, 2007

Public Schools and Believers -- Response to my Old Buddy, Mudly

O boy, you give me such opportunity, mudrake!!

It's clear to any discerning Christian reader that I had legit gripes as a Christian about public school values education and you have lied about me here. I was part of a groundswell of concerned citizens all over the country who didn't like what educators were doing to undermine our values and beliefs. E.G. what religious parents would want you in the schools giving yours and Microhistorian's view of history and the Biblical scriptures? a view you can't teach as proven but as your agnostic theory.

I DID post my concern for traditional values in my campaigns --the first time with a big drawing of a pendulum --swinging back to traditional values.

so there was no deceit about me as a candidate ever. I won twice. There are many one-termers in our district history, whether they lost elections, knew they would, or just got bored, I don't know. One quit to run for another office and lost that race.

I also was an advocate for performing arts and was the initiator in the new performing arts complex --as the architects had not planned on that in their first plannings --it was all about gyms. And I said our stage was woefully small for the size of school, that it limited participation and that all our students should see the school musicals and dramas and occasional concerts as part of their education--and not be given a choice to pay a dollar or stay back in study hall --only showing one act to the students who paid the buck. And our auditorium was small for the size of school. I thought it was pitiful that you could go through high school and have no idea what a broadway musical was when we did one every year. where my daughter teaches, the whole school sees their musicals--without choice. And they are a respectful audience. Some schools fear to mandate any arts programs, lest the kids act like hellions and ridicule their peers -as they did when I visited Springfield's holiday concert before Christmas break one year.

For the 3rd election, I was opposed by an active agnostic waterville group who went door to door against me. You were probably one of them. They had fliers which were untruthful and slanted about me as you are.

Nevertheless, despite your work, for my 3rd election I was announced a winner by 100 votes (vote totals aren't huge out here, as you apparently know --so 100 was not an unusual or small margin of victory --in fact I was the 2nd ranked winner of 3 out of 5 candidates. And my successor was not reelected. Maybe she didn't run; I heard it wasn't exactly 'her thing'.

The day after the election, "they" decided some of the printer-paks were defective, creasing the paper, making the totals hard to read (they always were hard to read --I have worked for the election board as a teller and creased papers were nothing new -- we had to guess sometimes between a 6 or an 8, e.g., and many totals were questionable before THIS election. The democrats and the republicans would make a guess as to the number and add it in.

But this time the bd of election recounted and did not call in representatives of the candidates as they normally do by law for "official recounts" --and what do you know? --after a recount by "opening the machines", i lost by 100 votes -- --the change of almost exactly one digit. Someone called me the day of the announced change in vote totals, following the recount and asked me if I were so and so (my full name) who ran for the Aw board --I said yes --and she hesitated --and then hung up. She was African American for sure by her voice accent --I always wondered if it were a bd of elections whistle blower-type who wanting to clue me in that I had been gypped--or someone from the media who suspected as much.

the board of elections said they fulfilled the law on the recount because they had both a republican and democrat to witness the process. However, ours was not a partisan election, so I maintain still that i and the other candidates should have been there to safeguard the process, because I did have a hate group the likes of Mud-rake opposing me vigorously.

Had I wanted to spend money for a lawyer, I think I could've caused a big stink for our bd. of elections --but I decided it wasn't worth it to me. I had spent enough on posters and a mailing --and felt I had no more money to pursue an unpredictable outcome.

what I wonder is why in heck we ever relied on the old-fashioned printer paks with their creases and blurry numbers --if all we had to do was "open the machines" and get the totals that way.

About the health class movies i told you about -the promiscuous boy, a movie for Mr. H's health class for middle school -you remind me of him in personaltiy, by the way--smiles with his lips, otherwise seems angry and unhappy to me) was used at AW. The promiscuous boy would've been seen as 'cool.' His character was considered good when he was persuaded to contact the girls to whom he gave his STD. A real hero. 2 of those films I described were used by Springfield or AW schools. The one about the couple going to the drugstore for condoms was one promoted for purchase, as i recall.

Our teachers also showed R-rated movies to under age students --and put R-rated book on reading list --the Invisible man that starts out with incest and 3 in a bed. It's supposed to be humorous when the mother figures out what dad and daughter did in their semi-sleep state and she chases dad with a fry pan --for 9th graders (young teens)! My friend's daughter got the book at the school library, recommended on the teacher's book report list, and said to her mother right away, shocked, "Mom, this is a dirty book!" Most of us don't want the idea of parent-child incest suggested to our kids--and certainly not in a titillating or humorous way --it's one of the "unthinkables" in a normal healthy and moral household. So what was this teacher's purpose or right to do such a thing?

the 8th grade english teacher showed "The Breakfast Club" --which is R-rated --and condoning of a drug-high in the school library --kids dancing on the mezzanine railing, as I recall. The good message of the movie, about kids from different cliques and types getting along together is good --but doesn't erase the fact that 8th graders are 13 and 14 and not old enough for the R-rated movies --and the fact that the movie condoned disrespect for school authority, drug-use, and one guy looking up at a girl's crotch under the table.

Also, the 9th grade health teacher --maybe THAT was you --showed "An early frost" about a gay couple depicted as a normal couple to my daughter's 9th grade health class. She knew that wasn't right. She noted that the film made homosexual couples seem just like any other --whose infidelity brought home AIDS. The point was to warn about AIDS --but in a homosexuality-approving context.

You just don't get it. You teachers have no right to tell my kid implicitly or explicitly any of the following:

homosexuality is genetic (unproven) and gay sex is perfectly OK (your opinion, not the church's, not most parents').

A grown-up, obviously gay Planned Parenthood speaker said to us area school board members at a luncheon, "I'm exploring my sexuality and learning new things every day!" I asked at the luncheon why PP wouldn't recommend that it is best for kids to wait for marriage before being sexually active --and thus promote the ideal of marriage for sex --and the spokesperson said, "O we couldn't do that --too many kids have parents who never married. We might offend them." I said, but aren't there many out there among those many single moms who would prefer to have a loving and faithful, providing husband to help in the task of raising their children? who wish the person they loved had been taught the value of fidelity, monogamy and marriage and become good spouses to him or her? Ought we not be promoting marriage over sleeping around and shacking up? Considering all the social science data that does indeed back up the idea that children in traditional families fare better on average.

MOREOVER, what else you teachers had no right to do:

You have no right to do as happened in a school here recently --tell a child that the story of Adam and Eve is opinion and not fact --when this didn't need to be the illustration in a teaching on opinions vs. facts. Fortunately, this mother said, "Go ask your science teacher" --because he's a believer and she knew he would tell her, outside of class, that the bible is truth. And he would not subject the topic to class discussion to undermine the religious faith teachings of parents.

Also, teachers have no right to tell the kids, "There is no such place as Hell" as one suburban teacher did. Again, contradicting the beliefs of religious parents --a belief which cannot be disproven scientifically--or proven--until you die. Then people will know.

Such teachers are undermining the faith of religious parents --on our dollar --and this is not right.

They have every right to say that no one should bash people who believe differently about morals and religion--but they should be supportive of the positive contributions of faith and faith communities --and the positive benefits of traditional, functional marriage --because these are factually supportable truths.

Schools should cooperate with church and family in the rearing of healthy, responsible, happy citizens. They should avoid scheduling sports, etc. on Wed. nites and Sundays--as they used to do out of respect for the communities to which their students belong --out of respect to the taxpayers who pay their salaries and benefits.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

No comments: