FollowUp 1: Opposition to Day of Silence

Friday 20 April 2012 is this year's Day of Silence, sponsored by GLSEN.  Why?

The National Day of Silence is a day of action in which students across the country vow to take a form of silence to call attention to the silencing effect of anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in schools.

That's the whole of it.  The rest of the details of implementation are not terribly complicated.  Students are directed to follow teachers instructions and speak in class if they are required to do so.

While you DO have a right to participate in the Day of Silence between classes and before and after school, you may NOT have the right to stay silent during instructional time if a teacher requests for you to speak. According to Lambda Legal, "Under the Constitution, public schools must respect students' right to free speech. The right to speak includes the right not to speak, as well as the right to wear buttons or T-shirts expressing support for a cause." However, this right to free speech doesn't extend to classroom time. "If a teacher tells a student to answer a question during class, the student generally doesn't have a constitutional right to refuse to answer." We remind participants that students who talk with their teachers ahead of time are more likely to be able to remain silent during class. Find more Lamda Legal advice here.

But that doesn't slow the lies and bigotry as 20 April approaches.  Here are four recent samples of opposition.

From a letter to the editor in Central Jersey

High school students across the nation (including a few Hunterdon Central High School students) will be celebrating the Day of Dialogue (April 19) that supports marriage between a man and woman (a creation ordinance in Genesis). 

The Day of Dialogue gives students another perspective to the Day of Silence (April 20), which is promoted by GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and receives a lot of support from high school administrators and faculty. The purpose of the Day of Silence is to promote the homosexual agenda — GLSEN encourages high school students to lobby for legislation supported by homosexual-advocacy groups. GLSEN also encourages the high school students to pressure school officials to promote gay friendly material and events.

It should be noted that the Book of Genesis does discuss creation and procreation but does not establish limits upon who can marry whom.

"Promote the homosexual agenda" in terms of the Day of Silence is opposing bullying.  There is no further agenda for the schools.  "homosexual-advocacy" is a silly phrase.  The LGBTQ Community does advocate for equal treatment under the law for all persons.  As sexuality is generally believed to be immutable, according to major medical and major psychological organizations, advocacy is for how we are treated.  Gay friendly is good.  Human friendly is even better.

Right Wing Watch has an excerpt from a radio dialogue with Truth In Action Ministries' Jerry Newcombe.

It’s something where they are basically taking a legitimate concern, which is that of bullying, and they are using that serious problem that does happen as an opportunity by which they will then promote and essentially indoctrinate children and expose children to the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle. Now bullying is wrong but so also is indoctrination into a deadly lifestyle and frankly homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle and that fact is withheld from the children.

Again, one cannot be indoctrinated into homosexuality.  Sexuality is immutable.  To put this in terms of religion, all humans are created in God's image and are acceptable.  If you don't like the "homosexual lifestyle" then don't live that way, but neither is there a single type of lifestyle for homosexuals nor is it their business to interfere in the lifestyle of others outside of their church.

The myth that "homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle" originated with debunked studies by Paul Cameron.  I am a healthy gay man in my 50s, unlikely by their rhetoric.  Giving false information to children is a direct defiance of the Bible's admonition against bearing false witness.

Mr. Newcombe continued with an inference that there is a link between Nazis and homosexuality.

It’s sad to see groups like GLSEN be accepted by the teacher's establishment and then allow the platform to go into the public schools and try and indoctrinate children. For example, they have something called the Day of Silence. Now they chose April 20 of all days to be the Day of Silence, I looked that up, I was like, ‘isn’t that Adolf Hitler’s birthday,’ I looked it up and sure enough it is Adolf Hitler’s birthday. I don’t think there’s a link there but how ironic. But they are using this day as a means by which to promote their lifestyle as if it is a positive thing.

It should be noted that the Day of Silence is generally on a Friday in April.  In 2011 it was on 15 April.  The link to Hitler is particularly ugly given the treatment of homosexuals by the Nazis.

Michael Brown, who I have repudiated before, wrote an article a week ago with his complaint.

But don't some schools already have generic, anti-bullying programs in place along with special, daylong events to highlight the destructive effects of bullying, a subject that should concern all of us? Of course they do, but that's not enough. GLSEN insists that a special focus must be put on LGBT kids, as if bullying a gay kid was worse than bullying a fat kid.

To the best of my knowledge there has not be a rash of fat kids committing suicide because of bullying.  It isn't that bullying anyone is worse than bullying someone else, but the problem of bullying LGBTQ students is real and exacerbated by the rants of Mr. Brown.  The attempt to diminish the importance of bullying that is sanctioned implicitly by religious organizations like Mr. Brown's is exactly why the Day of Silence is needed.

But there's more that takes place on the Day of Silence: A pro-homosexuality message is often sent to the students, with teachers and administrators frequently promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism over the course of the day. That's why thousands of schools (and not just students) officially participate in the event, with the explicit backing of GLSEN. What about other messages being introduced during the day to balance the discussion? Perish the thought.

Promoting?  Again, sexuality is immutable.  It is tolerance and acceptance that is encouraged by GLSEN and the Day of Silence.  Balance the discussion?  The balance to a message of not bullying would be what?  A message to bully?  Students who perish as a consequence of bullying is the symptom.  Mr .Brown is part of the problem.

The so-called Liberty Counsel, an organization explicitly connected with the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has a brief complaint about the Day of Silence.

The Day of Silence is not about tolerance or bullying. It is about pushing a sexual agenda. Students and staff who disagree with a radical sexualized agenda are demonized and made to feel like outsiders. Children should be afforded a rigorous education opportunity and not be forced to accept a radical sexualized agenda subsidized with tax dollars. Parents and lawmakers should take the time to learn about the extreme views of GLSEN and the intolerance promoted by the Day of Silence.

There is nothing "sexualized" about the Day of Silence.  This is a fabrication by Matt Staver, the head of Liberty Counsel, who elaborated in an article at One News Now.

The "annual student-led event" is described on the website as one that "brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment" in schools. But as schools face enormous pressure from GLSEN to support and promote this event, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel says administrators, teachers, parents and students should not be intimidated.

"This is not about tolerating any issue or person," he asserts. "It is about a radical and forced agenda of homosexuality that these [days] of silence are promoting, sponsored by the GLSEN organization -- and sometimes under pressure by the schools."

Fear quotes around annual student-led event, implying that others are in the lead, is typical of Mr. Staver's writings.  GLSEN provides materials to students and teachers who request them, it is not pushed from outside.  The idea that homosexuality is somehow forced is completely absurd.  Mr. Staver apparently cannot accept the truth so is making up lies.

The Day of Silence will occur.  As the anti-LGBTQ bigots see that they are slowly losing, that equality for all citizens is becoming a mainstream concept, they can be expected to step up their rhetoric.  The real homosexual agenda, to be allowed to live peaceful lives with equal legal status effectively to be ignored by hate groups like those cited above, is a long way off.  The harassment of students continues and the Day of Silence is necessary.  Perhaps one day it will not be.

19 March 2012, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

20 April 2012, FollowUp 2.

FollowUp 1: Bully, the Movie

As reported today at One News Now, the blog of the hate group the American Family Association, since Bully did not have its MPAA rating reduced from R, they are releasing it without a rating so that teens will be allowed to see it.  Naturally, the Parents Television Council (PTC) is upset.

The movie, about the rising problem of bullying in America, received an R-rating from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) due to profanity. And despite protests calling for a downgrade to PG-13, the MPAA has held its ground. So the makers of the film will release the movie as "unrated" and are asking theaters to back down on a longstanding policy.

"They're doing an end-run essentially around the MPAA by encouraging theaters to show unrated movies. And I think they're setting a dangerous precedent that in the future, anytime a studio gets a rating on a movie that they don't like, they can just go ahead and release an unrated version," warns PTC's Melissa Henson. "They [will] have precedent for theaters now showing unrated films."

Harvey Weinstein and his company say they are defying the ratings board so more children can see the movie that deals with the "epidemic of teen bullying." But if that were the case, Henson says Weinstein could have simply removed the profanity. But he refused, claiming the content is staying "because it's real."

Bully is not yet released to most theaters.  It will likely be important for students to see.



Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

23 March 2012:  Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

Pattern: Claims of Threat to Religious Liberty

The various denominations of Christianity have a tradition of not getting along well.  From outside appearances, a truce is in place.  At least they have agreed to use common language and approach in their claims that President Obama is attacking their religious liberty. That there is no real attack on the practice of religion is immaterial.  Here are a few examples beginning in November 2011, culminating with reactions to the announcement about two weeks ago that contraception must be covered by all health plans:



Evangelical Protestant: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association complains that women's shelters in Colorado lost federal funding because they have mandatory bible study as part of the care for homeless and battered women. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service. He then complains that nurses were being forced to participate in abortions in New Jersey when they were required to care for women before and after abortions, not during the surgery. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health care practice with a church service.



Mormon and Roman Catholic: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich take the same positions. Both claim that Catholic Charities have been forced to curtail their adoption services because they won't serve gay couples. No, they just don't get federal funds if they are going to be bigots. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service.



Evangelical Protestant: Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel complains that the United States and Israel, all of Western Civilization, are threatened by marriage equality, gender equality, and family equality. Somehow if my partner and I can legally wed then Mr. Staver loses his religious liberty; while I gain my religious liberty. This is confusing equality and liberty with a zero sum game.



Roman Catholic: Bishop William Lori complains that the Church are being driven out of health care and adoption services. He is concerned that freedom of worship will replace freedom of religion. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service, then conflating a social service and a church service. One is free to celebrate one's religion, not to impose it on the rest of society.



Mormon: Hannah Smith complains that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.



Roman Catholic: Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and Newt Gingrich complain that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.

The pattern is clear.  The cry that religious liberty is being attacked by President Obama is not likely to abate.  That some might see that requiring that contraception be covered by health plans does not mean that individuals are required to use contraception is not going to slow or stop this allegation of President Obama being anti-religion.

What can or should President Obama do?  My gut reaction is that he should use the bully pulpit and explain both the misunderstanding at hand and why partisan interests are turning this into something that is larger than it ought to be.  Sadly, I don't think it would work.

I think the President is going to have to change this policy into something that is worse for the United States.  Employees who want birth control will have to pay for it out of pocket, if they can afford it.  That the cost of preventive measures is far less than the consequences of not taking those measures is not the issue.  That no one would be forced to use birth control in violation of their religious compass is not the issue.  This is entirely about how the President is perceived.

With that in mind, it is fair to consider additional perceptions.  President Obama, despite periodic allegations, is clearly a Christian.  That should have been obvious from his tumultuous exit from Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.  At some point someone other than the President is going to need to point out that members of the Church of Latter Day Saints do not adhere to the Nicene Creed; they are not considered by most Christians to be Christian.

I don't like playing that kind of politics.  Unless a presidential contender adheres to a religion that is a threat to the United States, the Church of American Dissolution or something dangerous outside of spiritual questions, I don't like using that issue.  Still, those who want to make Mr. Obama a one-term president are already playing religious politics.  To not recognize the politics for what it is could result, if one takes Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney at their words, in a shift toward theocracy.

My hope is that President Obama and his advisers both see what is happening and have ideas for getting out of this religious trap that they have sprung on themselves and avoid the low road that I mentioned.

28 February 2012: FollowUp 1.

11 March 2012:  FollowUp 2.

Praise: Future of Sex Education

A number of religious and quasi-religious organizations are upset over the National Sexuality Education Standards that were published by Future of Sex Education (FoSE).  Before we get to the fears of these religious groups, let's look at the goals as set out on page 6.

• Outline what, based on research and extensive professional expertise, are the minimum, essential content and skills for sexuality education K–12 given student needs, limited teacher preparation and typically available time and resources.
• Assist schools in designing and delivering sexuality education K–12 that is planned, sequential and part of a comprehensive school health education approach.
• Provide a clear rationale for teaching sexuality education content and skills at different grade levels that is evidence-informed, age-appropriate and theory driven.
• Support schools in improving academic performance by addressing a content area that is both highly relevant to students and directly related to high school graduation rates.
• Present sexual development as a normal, natural, healthy part of human development that should be a part of every health education curriculum.
• Offer clear, concise recommendations for school personnel on what is age-appropriate to teach students at different grade levels.
• Translate an emerging body of research related to school-based sexuality education so that it can be put into practice in the classroom.

While I am not a teacher of sex ed, these look like common sense goals.  Looking at what research shows, determine what is best for the students.  Good.

The Family Research Council (FRC), in their Washington Update, complain.

In the proposed timetable, children should be able to "define sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender" by age 10 and "identify parents or other trusted adults of whom students can ask questions about sexual orientation."

These are by the end of fifth grade, not by age ten.  Some fifth graders will still be ten at the end of the school year, but most will be eleven years old.  So, from page 14 - 15, by the end of fifth grade here is what students should be able to do (I have added the numbering):

1. Describe male and female reproductive systems including body parts and their functions.
2. Identify medically accurate information about female and male reproductive anatomy.
3. Explain the physical, social and emotional changes that occur during puberty and adolescence.
4. Describe how friends, family, media, society and culture can influence ideas about body image.
5. Identify medically accurate information and resources about puberty and personal hygiene.
6. Explain ways to manage the physical and emotional changes associated with puberty.
7. Explain how the timing of puberty and adolescent development varies considerably and can still be healthy.
8. Identify parents or other trusted adults of whom students can ask questions about puberty and adolescent  health issues.
9. Describe how puberty prepares human bodies for the potential to reproduce.
10. Define sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender.
11. Identify parents or other trusted adults of whom students can ask questions about sexual orientation.
12. Demonstrate ways to treat others with dignity and respect.
13. Demonstrate ways students can work together to promote dignity and respect for all people.
14. Describe the process of human reproduction.
15. Define HIV and identify some age appropriate methods of transmission, as well as ways to prevent transmission.
16. Describe the characteristics of healthy relationships.
17. Compare positive and negative ways friends and peers can influence relationships.
18. Identify parents and other trusted adults they can talk to about relationships.
19. Demonstrate positive ways to communicate differences of opinion while maintaining relationships.
20. Demonstrate ways to treat others with dignity and respect.
21. Define teasing, harassment and bullying and explain why they are wrong.
22. Explain why people tease, harass or bully others.
23. Identify parents and other trusted adults they can tell if they are being teased, harassed or bullied.
24. Demonstrate ways to communicate about how one is being treated.
25. Discuss effective ways in which students could respond when they are or someone else is being teased, harassed or bullied.
26. Persuade others to take action when someone else is being teased, harassed or bullied.
27. Define sexual harassment and sexual abuse.
28. Identify parents or other trusted adults they can tell if they are being sexually harassed or abused.
29. Demonstrate refusal skills (e.g. clear “no” statement, walk away, repeat refusal).

Aside from the list being extremely comprehensive and the language being stilted in a way typical to education academia, I really wish this had been around when I was young.  The FRC does not like #10 despite the accuracy of the definition.  This is, in fact, a great definition in that it places the emphasis on romance and attraction, not on physical sex.  The latter is important, but not as important as the emotions.

Keeping parents at the forefront is repeated five times (#8, 11, 18, 23, and 28).  One would think that the FRC would appreciate that part.  It is among many features of the standards that highlight the safety of the students.  But the FRC wrote:

Educators should not be undermining the values that parents are trying to instill in their children at home.

Apparently the FRC writer did not read the standards.  Chad Hills of Citizen Link, part of the American Family Association, complains that the standards are too explicit.

“Explicit, anything-goes sex-education groups would have our children and youth believe there are no values, principles or moral foundations associated with sexuality,” Hills said. “We disagree. Sexuality is an inherent part of our humanness in God’s design.”

Values?  There are clear values, such as respect for others, communications, and opposition to teasing, harassment, and bullying, just at the 5th grade level.  There is nothing opposed to any religion in the standards.  Mr. Hills must be upset because it is not focused explicitly on the teachings of any particular religion, notably his own.

The Citizen Link article goes on to complain that the FoSE website is opposed to abstinence-only sex ed.  It is with good reason that FoSE is opposed.  Abstinence-only does not work.

The Baptist Press also objects.

"In a society where adults are sharply divided on how to address these issues, it makes no sense whatsoever for groups like the NEA to tell our children how they should think," said Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist national strategist for gender issues and representative of the convention's Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals.

Part of the importance of school is helping children learn to think.  Part of doing so involves students understanding what is true and then discussing the morality of these issues, the how they should think, with their parents, as the Standards repeatedly indicate.

Stith added in his comments to Baptist Press, "The reality is that it has the potential to create serious conflicts between parents and children. If children are taught values that are in direct opposition to the biblical values of their parents, those parents would be put in an adversarial position with their own children. This is just simply not a healthy approach."

If that were the case, then the Standards would not be telling students to identify parents and other trusted adults with whom they can discuss issues.  There is no endeavor to place a wedge between students and their parents.

Regarding the "biblical values", our versions of the Bible do not all agree.  Public school should never teach Jewish values, pandering to me, over Baptist values.  Instead, religion should be taught at home and in places of worship, not in the public schools.

There are numerous other articles out there complaining.  The complaints seem to be focused on acknowledgement that LGBTQ people exist, children knowing the correct names for parts of the body, a non-abstinence-only approach, and an imagined division of children from their parents.  The Standards are a detailed set of guidelines that will need to be refined in each school district with input from teachers, students, and parents.  It looks like a great start.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

Praise: Indiana License Plates IYG

The Indiana Youth Group is designed for LGBTQ youth in the state of Indiana.

IYG is a cool activity center for all LGBTQ youth and their straight friends/allies. We offer a safe place for you to meet new friends and talk to the staff after school and in the evenings.

They are also now a specialty license plate:


This is not radical, despite the complaints of the bigots.  Micah Clark, Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana, said:

"You have to question what the BMV was thinking when they approved a license plate for a group which recruits teens into the homosexual lifestyle. Since health risks do not seem to matter, what is to prevent a cigar club from now getting a license plate from the BMV?"

Entirely incorrect.  First, there is no recruitment.  IYG is a welcoming place that does not and cannot make anyone homosexual.  The American Psychological Association has an excellent brochure that clears up this lie by Mr. Clark.  Sexuality is not something that one acquires by hanging around others.  It is innate.

Second, the health risks of being a homosexual are tremendously exaggerated by Mr. Clark and others in the anti-equality groups.  The greatest risk to gay youth are isolation, bullying, and the bigotry that the American Family Association spreads.  IYG is a healthful solution even as AFA is the problem.

Finally, all kinds of groups have specialty plates in Indiana, including bigoted groups like the Boy Scouts


religious groups like the Freemasons (or quasi-religious if you prefer)


political groups like the National Rifle Association


and many, many more.

This is the second state to offer a specialty plate for an LGBTQ organization.  The first was in 2009 for Equality Maryland.


Thanks to GoPride Chicago for the heads up.