Cultural Separation from Parents

[Ken]

Go ahead. I'm honestly curious. What exactly is the "neutral stance" to each of the above questions that you are advocating?

Whose advocating the neutral stance? As a defender of liberal secularism wouldn’t that be your bag? I was just pointing out that claims of secular neutrality are false.

As I see it, neutrality is impossible. These ideologies and Christianity are on a collision course. Secularism may win and destroy whatever is left of Christian civilization, in which case Christians will separate again from all politics as in the first three centuries A.D. before Constantine.

I don't really know, I'm just speculating.

So you have no answers then? Not even going to try to answer the question? I thought as much.

My answers are simple, basic, and universal. We should treat everyone fairly, equitably and with respect. And teach students to do the same. And then move on with the teaching of math, science, English, Spanish, history, and everything else.

And by the way, the majority of teachers that you are criticizing are Christian. What you are defining as "Christian" is actually a minority of Christianity. And no, we aren't ever going to revert to some pre-Constantine world no matter how much you might wish for it.

[Falco Knotwise]

So you have no answers then? Not even going to try to answer the questions?

And by the way, the majority of teachers that you are criticizing are Christian. What you are defining as "Christian" is actually a minority of Christianity. And no, we aren't ever going to revert to some pre-Constantine world no matter how much you might wish for it.

Seeing that as possible and wishing for it aren't necessarily the same thing.

Whatever a post-Christian civilization will look like I don't expect it will be an exact replica of ancient Rome.

[Ken]

So you have no answers then? Not even going to try to answer the questions?

And by the way, the majority of teachers that you are criticizing are Christian. What you are defining as "Christian" is actually a minority of Christianity. And no, we aren't ever going to revert to some pre-Constantine world no matter how much you might wish for it.

Seeing that as possible and wishing for it aren't necessarily the same thing.

Whatever a post-Christian civilization will look like I don't expect it will be an exact replica of ancient Rome.

I expect it will probably look more like modern day Sweden or Denmark than ancient Rome. Where the cultural trappings of Christianity remain (Christmas, marriages, etc.) but most people are no longer religiously engaged. Where, for example, a majority of Swedes and Danes identify as Christian but less than 8% of Swedes and 6% of Danes church on any sort of regular basis. But still celebrate Christmas, get married in churches, and so forth.

You still haven't answered the question. How do you think LGBT students should be treated in schools? And how should students be taught to treat their fellow students and citizens who are different from them?

[MaxPC]

From my experiences, whenever I see someone write multiple serial postings of great length trying to justify secular sins and perversions, that is a sure sign of mental issues and addictions.

In the case of defending the sexualisation of children, the questions that emerge for me are:
-Does this person have an addiction to child porn?
-If so, does this person work with children?
-Does this person victimise children?
-Is this person supporting the sexualisation of children to create a new supply of victims?

[justme]

From my experiences, whenever I see someone write multiple serial postings of great length trying to justify secular sins and perversions, that is a sure sign of mental issues and addictions.

In the case of defending the sexualisation of children, the questions that emerge for me are:
-Does this person have an addiction to child porn?
-If so, does this person work with children?
-Does this person victimise children?
-Is this person supporting the sexualisation of children to create a new supply of victims?

MaxPC,
That was uncalled for.
Your hatred is showing through in this personal attack.

[MaxPC]

From my experiences, whenever I see someone write multiple serial postings of great length trying to justify secular sins and perversions, that is a sure sign of mental issues and addictions.

In the case of defending the sexualisation of children, the questions that emerge for me are:
-Does this person have an addiction to child porn?
-If so, does this person work with children?
-Does this person victimise children?
-Is this person supporting the sexualisation of children to create a new supply of victims?

MaxPC,
That was uncalled for.
Your hatred is showing through in this personal attack.

Justme, you’re wrong in this case. This is simply sharing from my personal, 90 years of experiences of human behaviors. You do not jump so readily on others. Perhaps you should look more closely at your own patterns.

[temporal1]

Jesus cites the creation of one man, one woman, as proof of God's intent that marriage consist of one man and one woman.
To say or imply that a heterosexual marriage as the foundation of the family is a modern concept and not historically normative
is hogwash.

God-created mankind existed long before Jesus, always God, arrived on earth, first, as God in utero, then born God, grew into a child, teen, young man, adult, God throughout. God, even as a babe in a manger.

Altho academia adores anomalies, the more “exotic” the better, most cultures and faiths are based on one man, one woman families, they value and protect resulting children. Interesting, as people from varying cultures crossed paths, whether cooperating or clashing, the almost universal relationships of husbands+wives were generally respected, men+women understanding the grave implications of disrespect of these relationships. Rape, fornication, adultery, etc.

Academics are tempted to believe they are “smarter than the average bear” when they embrace anomalies.
Average bears can recognize anomalies without going so far as to embrace them.

Yogi Bear

[temporal1]

1) .. And by the way, the majority of teachers that you are criticizing are Christian.

2) .. What you are defining as "Christian" is actually a minority of Christianity.

1) Do you have a source for this claim? (i’ve never seen one for gov school teachers.)
There are stats reflecting the majority are political Democrats.

2) On this forum, there is central interest in recognizing authentic Christian conversion versus .. lots of others, for example,
when hillary and obama described the need for Christians to “get with” the many cultural-secular-political desires of choice;
when secularists claim Christianity out of habit, not converted hearts+minds; when biden (and many politicians) claim to be Catholic and/or Christian, but strongly insist, even by force of the sword, on-demand abortion and other carnal indulgences.

With these things in mind, being in “a minority of Christianity” could hardly be more important, with eternal consequences.
It’s the highest desirable example of “minority rule.”

[GaryK]

This is not just about how we treat people different from us. It's also about colonizing educational institutions with curriculums supposedly neutral towards gender but which really teach that gender is something optional that anyone can choose for themselves.

That is not a neutral stance.

The effect this is having on society is obvious.

Spell it out then. What exactly and precisely SHOULD public schools be teaching about gender?

What should they be teaching about gay students?
What should the be teaching about students with ambiguous gender identities?
What should they be teaching about trans students?
What should they be teaching about students who have gay parents (two dads or two moms?)
How should they be teaching other students to treat their classmates who identify as some variant of LGBT?
How should they be teaching students to view and treat LGBT people in our wider society?
How should they be directing their teachers to treat their LGBT students?

In addition, remember that we are talking about public schools in a constitutional democracy with probably the most religiously, ethnically, and racially diverse population in all of human history. Where public institutions are governed by Constitutional principles not religious ones. Which means your answers to EACH of the above questions should be based on shared civic values as expressed in the Constitution and not the narrow teachings of one faction of one particular religion.

Go ahead. I'm honestly curious. What exactly is the "neutral stance" to each of the above questions that you are advocating?

Why SHOULD public schools be teaching about gender and all the other questions you raise?

My answers are simple, basic, and universal. We should treat everyone fairly, equitably and with respect. And teach students to do the same. And then move on with the teaching of math, science, English, Spanish, history, and everything else.

This seems to me to imply, that in the public education of children, these questions you raise SHOULD be the primary focus of education and after getting these questions answered correctly, THEN you move on to the less important things like reading, writing and math.

This is what many of us are saying is wrong with the education systems of our day.

[Robert]

From my experiences, whenever I see someone present explanations write multiple serial postings of great length trying to justify secular sins and perversions, that is a possible sure sign of mental issues and addictions.

In the case of defending the sexualisation of children, the questions that emerge for me are:
-Does this person have an addiction to child porn?
-If so, does this person work with children?
-Does this person victimise children?
-Is this person supporting the sexualisation of children to create a new supply of victims?

This would be a much better way of expressing the thought without targeting. I underlined the I statements that identify that this is a personal opinion. I think this is a legitimate expression, but needed to be less targeted.