Focus on the Family Attacks SpongeBob

[shesulsa]

For every so many gender identity- and sexual orientation-grounded individuals in the world (to include school, college, workplace, grocery store, bar, dojang, wherever) there are one or two individuals in crisis. Parents will be parents and most of them wish to pound every peg they see into a round hole - especially if those "pegs" sprang forth from their loins.

However, for many of these "different" kids, the outside influence is ALL THEY HAVE - especially when they must cling to a pamphlet that tells them they are o-kay, that they're not alone, they're not an abomination or the devil's work, or confused or going to grow out if it. Most these kids don't have friend one.

I suppose what I'm saying is that everybody deserves a dish of hope, a helping of understanding and more than just a little tolerance. Especially on such a difficult and very personal part of one's identity and at such a very difficult period of growth.

Our children are our hope - only hope - for the future. There are much worse things we could be teaching them than tolerance, patience, humility and understanding.

My .02.

 

[JPR]

The issue at hand here, however, is sexual identity and how one approaches it in a public school setting If we do not teach tolerance of gays, do we then teach gay bashing? Guilt tripping? Mockery? Shunning? Slurs? I know your answer to this will be "no." But what do you propose we do?

It has taken me a sometime to reply because I think the question you asked is pivotal to how we can function as a society with so many different back grounds and value sets. Here goes my attempt at an answer.

Schools really must team with the parents to educate children. I have found, in my experiences of helping to found, merge and run a private school, that not only are you trying to educate the children but you are often in the position of educating parents. You can provide leadership and guide the school in a certain way, but you really need to work with the parents to be successful. That requires communicating to them often and explaining to them the challenge that you are trying to overcome.

If the school is going to teach tolerance, then it should do so with no outside group sponsorship. I know it makes it harder for the school, because a canned tolerance program from the “XYZ foundation” is easy to get and use, but it may come with baggage that can cause a storm.

The school should teach principles, not particulars. What principle(s)? A couple of them come to mind. First, it is unacceptable to call names, slur, physically intimidate, or harass anyone for any reason. Second, everyone has intrinsic value regardless of his or her differences. Third, you can tolerate with out agreeing on the rightness/morality of something. Fourth and final, look for what is common instead of pointing out what is different. Think about this for a second. This whole discussion came up because of sexual orientation and the stresses faced by having that lifestyle, but it really isn’t limited to that. What harassment does a child face if they remain a virgin throughout school? Or what about the child whose parents will not allow them to watch certain movies that “everybody” has seen? Or the child that has a diet that is far different from the norm? Or the child that goes through puberty earlier or later than the majority? In these situations, and thousands of others, children face the labeling, name-calling, peer pressure that comes from being different.

It is very difficult to tolerate things that you think are wrong. It is also very difficult to oppose an idea or an action, without demonizing the person doing the action. However, these are skills we all need to develop and teach our children.

JPR

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Schools really must team with the parents to educate children. I have found, in my experiences of helping to found, merge and run a private school, that not only are you trying to educate the children but you are often in the position of educating parents. You can provide leadership and guide the school in a certain way, but you really need to work with the parents to be successful. That requires communicating to them often and explaining to them the challenge that you are trying to overcome.

I couldn't agree more that parents and teachers ought to work together in educating a child.

It would be interesting if you could compare your experiences with those of a parent active in the PTA in your local public schools. It might be an illuminating experience for both of you.

I'm now teaching martial arts to a group of low income kids at a local elementary (4th and 5th graders). 57 percent of the children in the school live in poverty. In my class I have three children who are learning disabled (one of whom is emotionally handicapped) and two with ADHD. Two are black, two are hispanic, and I have two immigrants from Europe...an Italian and an Albanian. I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of these children are being abused at home.

In your private school setting do you have comparable demographics? How many are poor and on scholarship? How many are facing the challenges these kids face?

My point: The parents of these children are largely uninvolved in their lives. If I get scholarships for these kids at the "Y" for their future martial arts training (which I will...I run that program too) I know the kids won't likely show up. Mom and Dad won't bring them. Mom and Dad often don't come to PTA meetings. Mom and Dad probably aren't too active in their children's education either, and likely find "better things" to do than sit down with their children to help them with their homework for that evening.

JPR, parent involvement is a great idea in developing a program for tolerance...but the world of education isn't monolithic and I suspect a private school such as yours has distinct advantages over the one I've mentioned. The very fact that the parents have brought the child to your school and paid for their education shows a level of concern...and financial ability to support that concern...often not found in the public schools.

And, per your suggestion, ought we educate these deficient and destitute parents I've listed? Provided we can get them in to the school, I suppose we could. I know the adminstrators at this school are trying. But there's the rub--getting an apathetic parent or as is often the case, a frustrated and hapless caretaking grandparent--to come in and partake of the educational process.

And again, to the topic of teaching tolerance...

If tolerance of Gays is taught throughout the public schools, those with religious stances against homosexuality have a recourse to deal with it: The pulpit. In church they can educate their children as to the evils of the homosexual lifestyle and how it can lead to perdition. They will not, and have not, faced restriction from the government in this regard. Whether with vitriol or compassion, ministers can preach to their congregations and forcefully drive home their respective message.

If then--after all this--a proportion of Christian children someday "come out" and confess to being homosexuals, the faithful most likely will (as they oft do now) blame the secular environment of the schools for the peril of those tender souls. In doing so, however, they admit to an impotence of message. The pulpit will have failed.

Still others might come to realize, by the forced reflection born of the love for their children, that homosexuality is not a learned behavior nor a choice.

This sort of epiphany is heartbreakingly rare.


Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

If schools really are supposed to teach, "principles, not particulars," can we please go back to the original Pledge of Allegiance, the one without the jingoistic language about America and without the childish demand that everybody worship the same God? Can we drop the demand for right-wing fundamentalist prayer forced down kids' throats? Can we teach science rather than primitive superstition in biology class, and stop perpetuating fantasies about American history? Can we quit fussing over Judy Blume's books for kids and adolescents? Can we stop with the propaganda for consumerism?

Or hey, here's a wacky "liberal," idea. Could we maybe teach kids that people are generally to be respected, and violence against them is always wrong, even though they live very different kinds of lives? Or how 'bout teaching them that it's mean to call other people names, whatever the names are?

In other words, how 'bout we make a national pledge to follow the moral precepts of, say, Dr. Seuss? Shouldn't be THAT hard.

Thought not. Hell, we can't even get schools to quit selling the junk foods that contribute to juvenile diabetes and ADHD.... Why, if they did that, adults might have to pony up for what it would actually take to finance universally decent schools and communities.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

In other words, how 'bout we make a national pledge to follow the moral precepts of, say, Dr. Seuss? Shouldn't be THAT hard.

Well, not the rhyme and meter anyway.

That actually would be a lot of fun to do...and if I weren't out the door in five minutes or so, I'd take up that challenge.

Got an idea for a shirt...

WWHD?

What Would Horton Do?

This referring of course to an elephant of impeccable morals and integrity. I don't believe he's a Republican, either.



Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Still others might come to realize, by the forced reflection born of the love for their children, that homosexuality is not a learned behavior nor a choice.

This sort of epiphany is heartbreakingly rare.

February 14, 2005

Keyes Daughter Out of the Closet

Maya Marcel-Keyes, the 19-year-old daughter of conservative pundit Alan Keyes "will be making her first public appearance as a gay activist at a Valentine Day's rally in front of the Maryland State House" today, CBS News reports.

Last summer her father, as an Senate candidate from Illinois, called Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter "a sinner" and said homosexuality was "selfish hedonism."

Marcel-Keyes said "her parents have thrown her out of the house, stopped speaking to her and refuse to pay for college because she is gay."



Regards,


Steve

 

[Ping898]

Sad part is there are too many kids this happens too. I think it makes others afraid to be honest with their family's cause for whatever reason, they can't financially or emotionally afford to be on their own yet.

No kids deserves to be completely cut off from their family, nothing, real or percieved should stop you from loving your kids if nothing else.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Horton would never abandon a child, biological or otherwise, as Maisie found out. Apparently "conservatives," like Keyes--a nutcake anyway--can't live up to the morals of a children's book, let alone the Bible.

And these are the guys who keep lecturing the rest of us. Maybe we should start a thread on the curious moral records of the self-appointed moral guardians of America.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Read this in the NY Times this morning:

<H2>At Least One Program Runs Toward Controversy

[size=-1]By ALESSANDRA STANLEY [/size]

atty Bouvier, Marge's chain-smoking, "MacGyver"-loving sister, came out of the cartoon closet on last night's episode of "The Simpsons." The episode was preceded by a warning that because the show contained discussion of same-sex marriage, "parental discretion" was advised.

Gay characters are not new to television, or to "The Simpsons," for that matter (Montgomery Burns's doting assistant, Waylon Smithers, collects Malibu Stacy dolls and vacations at men's singles resorts.)

A few years ago, the coming out of a prime-time character would probably not have caused much of a stir. But in the current climate, with the issue of gay rights spiking in the public discourse, the episode stood out. What could have seemed like a sweeps month gimmick became instead an aptly satirical comment.

The debate over same-sex marriages, and the way the conservative right inflated that debate into a wedge issue during the presidential campaign, is one factor. At the same time, growing fears about the possible spread of a rare strain of H.I.V. that is resistant to virtually all of the standard drugs has revived concern about unsafe sex among gays.

And cartoons are suddenly at the epicenter of the dispute. Conservative Christian groups are increasingly bold about attacking children's programming for pro-homosexual messages. After the new education secretary, Margaret Spellings, recently warned PBS that she had "very serious concerns" about an episode in "Postcards from Buster," in which a real little girl in Vermont introduces the cartoon bunny Buster Baxter to her mother and her mother's lesbian partner, PBS pulled the episode. Last month, Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, complained that the creators of SpongeBob SquarePants had allowed the character to be used in a "pro-homosexual" music video made for schoolchildren.

Some gay groups may have been relieved to see that in a secretly taped conversation with Doug Wead, a former aide to George H. W. Bush, the current President Bush said that despite his opposition to gay marriage, he did not want the Republican Party to campaign against homosexuality. But he also expressed concern that his reluctance to bash gays might alienate Christian conservatives. He certainly appears to have minced his words when talking to evangelical leaders. On the tapes, some of which were played for The New York Times, Mr. Bush explained to Mr. Wead that he told a Texas minister, James Robison: "I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"

Patty decided to wed her girlfriend, Veronica, after the town of Springfield legalized gay marriage to boost tourism and Homer Simpson became an ordained minister over the Internet to marry gay couples for cash.

The creators of "The Simpsons" had kept the identity of the gay character a secret, but the surprise was not so much who turned out to be gay (Patty's sensibilities were well established) but how the show would make fun of the issue. The writers chose to tweak every stakeholder in the debate, from evangelical preachers on the right to retailers and advertisers who champion gays as much for their "disposable income" as their civil rights.

The town even created its own theme song, sung to the tune of Harry Belafonte's "Banana Boat Song," "Gay-o, it's O.K.-o, Tie the knot and spend all your dough."

The show also lampooned lesbian stereotypes - women who love construction workers' gear and golf. In a flashback to Marge and Patty's different girlhoods, the teenage Marge pasted a poster of David Cassidy over her bed; Patty picked Miss Hathaway of "The Beverly Hillbillies."

"The Simpsons" also took a dig at its own network, Fox, by having Homer call Fox and get a recording that asks callers for reality show proposals with the motto, "Your half-baked ideas are all we've got."

The episode was not the funniest in "Simpsons" history, but it was a tonic at a moment when television seems increasingly humorless and tame - fearful of advertiser boycotts by the religious right and fines from the Federal Communications Commission.

</H2>and...

'Simpsons' Animates Gay Nuptials, and a Debate

[size=-1]By SHARON WAXMAN [/size]

OS ANGELES, Feb. 20 - In the ongoing culture wars over whether gays should have the right to marry, an animated question reared its head on Sunday prime-time television: as goes "The Simpsons," does the nation go, too?

In an episode titled "There's Something About Marrying," a longtime character on Fox's 15-year hit - it was Marge Simpson's sister Patty Bouvier, a closely held secret until the 8 p.m. broadcast - came out of the closet while Homer Simpson conducted dozens of same-sex weddings after small-town Springfield legalized the unions in a bid to increase tourism. As television's longest-running situation comedy, "The Simpsons" is no stranger to hot-button social, religious and political issues, mocking wardrobe malfunctions, Hollywood liberals and born-again Christians, among other targets.

But when a show as mainstream and popular as this takes on one of the most divisive issues in American society, it is certain to attract attention. Bookmakers in the United States and England were taking bets as to which character would be revealed as homosexual, and whether there would be a kiss - a nod, perhaps, to the popular programming gimmick of having lesbian characters lock lips during sweeps periods like the current one.

But mostly, television experts, fans and advocates for gay marriage ruminated over the larger significance of the moment.

"The issue was mainstream to some degree, but now that they've deigned it worthy of the show it is interwoven into the fabric of popular culture," said Ray Richmond, a television columnist for The Hollywood Reporter and co-editor of the anthology "The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family."

He added, " 'The Simpsons' bestows upon something a pop culture status it never had before, simply by virtue of being ripe for a joke."

(BetUS.com posted odds on the kiss at 7 to 5, and laid odds on Patty as the favorite to come out of the closet.)

Not unexpectedly, culture warriors were swift to weigh in, both for and against the cartoon's treatment of the issue.

"It's saying to those who demonize homosexuality, or what they call the homosexual agenda, anything from 'Lighten up' to 'Get out of town,' " said Marty Kaplan, associate dean of the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communication and host of a media show on the talk radio network Air America. "It sounds as though they're saying that what the religious right calls 'the homosexualist agenda,' as if it were creeping Satanism, is: these people are your neighbors in the Springfield that is America."

Indeed, in some ways the Simpsons' fictional hometown, Springfield, has become a surrogate for mainstream, small-town America, with Homer its bumbling working-class hero. The closest parallel may well be the endearing though intolerant Archie Bunker, who became a symbol of working-class America in the 1970's show "All in the Family."

L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Parents Television Council, criticized "The Simpsons" for addressing the issue of gay marriage, though he cautioned that he had not seen the episode. A parental advisory preceded the broadcast.

"At a time when the public mood is overwhelmingly against gay marriage, any show that promotes gay marriage is deliberately bucking the public mood," he said.

"I'd rather them not do it at all," he added. "You've got a show watched by millions of children. Do children need to have gay marriage thrust in their faces as an issue? Why can't we just entertain them?"

The show's writers could not be reached for comment, and Fox declined to comment.

Since debuting in 1989, "The Simpsons" has commonly skewered the most sensitive topics of social, religious, political and cultural debate. The culture, in turn, has returned the favor. "The Simpsons" has been featured in at least one university philosophy course, in which Homer was used as a tool to understand Aristotle, Kant and Nietzsche, and in a mathematical course to explore topics like calculus and Riemannian geometry.

The show, now in its 16th season, still garners strong ratings, while reruns of episodes from past years are broadcast continually on Fox. It has become a billion-dollar franchise for the network, spawning lucrative DVD packages, books and consumer merchandise.

 

[tsdclaflin]

We live in a free country. The first amendment provides freedom of expression to conservative radio talk show hosts, cartoon writers and homosexuals alike. It also protects parents of children in public schools, private schools and home schools. (It also protects gay activists and gay-bashers, KKK members and Nazis, minorities and religious extremists.)

Majority rules in this country. Right and wrong are determined by the values of the citizens of this country. Today, murder is wrong, socially unacceptable. In the future, assisted suicide may be legal. Years from now, it may be legal to kill the newborn, elderly and infirmed...seriously. All it would take is for the majority vote (or 2/3 in the case of some constitutional changes).

In a diverse country, a "melting pot", so to speak, we must have tolerance.
Can't we find a way to respect each other's differing beliefs, and still accept, like (and possibly even love) others?

I teach my children values and I also teach them to respect others and their values. There are lots of things that society says is "okay" that I will not do nor allow my children to do. But I try not to look down on others because we have different values, and I hope that people treat me with the same respect.

"Treat others the way you want to be treated." That does not say, "Treat others they way they treat you." It says to treat others the way YOU WANT to be treated.

One final thought: those that respectfully hold the view that homosexual behavior is unacceptable deserve the same respect that homosexuals deserve.

Hurray for freedom of expression!

One for all and all for one.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, but I'm afraid that this is an inaccurate statement of how rights in this country are grounded--which isn't in a vote of any kind, but in the notion that we have, "certain inalienable rights," (rights that cannot be taken away by human beings because they were not given by human beings) and that these rights cannot be voted away even by a 100% majority.

In other words, no vote that erased, say, free speech rights could possibly be Constitutional. And fortunately, there's no legal tradition of going back and trying to wipe out the first ten Amendments--rather, the legal tradition is one of expanding such rights as the right to free speech.

Incidentally, the fact is also that we have an independent judiciary (especially the Supreme Court) precisely to protect these inalienable rights, held by the Constitution to be impervious to the occasional, short-term stupidity of voters.

 

[Ray]

Sorry, but I'm afraid that this is an inaccurate statement of how rights in this country are grounded--which isn't in a vote of any kind, but in the notion that we have, "certain inalienable rights," (rights that cannot be taken away by human beings because they were not given by human beings) and that these rights cannot be voted away even by a 100% majority.

You're right in what you say and I agree wholeheartely. But in practice those inalienable rights do get comprised and it's up to us (all of us) to make sure we don't them be taken away.

Anyway, I think we can learn a lot from this whole fiasco. Look at how this kind of stuff just bounces off Bob. He seems to take it all in stride and keep on going. It's almost as though he were an invertibrate (and I don't mean that in an offensive way).