Brandon Strikes Again

[Leftfield 2,593]

10 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I'd argue that it didn't have to be stated. By opposing the bill aren't you affirming the right to have said programs?

No. And that is a ridiculously simplistic way to view it. Surprised you didn't edit this out after you'd read the rest of my post.

12 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Couldn't the teachers voice concerns to administrators and either group contact parents and let them know little Johnny is curious? And then let parents address the issue? (and please provide me a real life example of this Little Johnny scenario even happening K-3. It seems like an excuse for something not occurring in this age group)

Of course they could, and in most situations, should. But there may be times when a teacher has to address it sooner. I gave an example in another thread, but I'll give it here in case you didn't see it: One of my daughter's best friends is the child of a lesbian couple. It has never been a secret, but when some of the kids at school found out and it spread around, there were some that made fun of her about it. This was in 1st grade, if I remember correctly, but certainly before 3rd. Was the teacher supposed to say nothing in that situation, or should she have done what she did: explain to those other children that there are some kids that have two moms or two dads and that it's nothing someone should be teased or ashamed about?

While kids that age don't have a concept of human sexuality, and shouldn't, they do know who they are attracted to. I had my first crush when I was in 1st grade. How old were you? If a kid has a crush on another of the same sex, should a teacher not be able to intervene? The way the law is written, not only can the teacher not discuss with a kid why they shouldn't be antagonizing a gay child, they can't even comfort the gay child by telling them they have nothing to be ashamed of.

You make this all sound as though teaching sexuality is what anyone opposed to this bill is after, but you are misconstruing it. In fact you are now doing so deliberately because I've already explained otherwise in my previous post. 

29 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Show me where the statute promotes sexuality of any kind. I thought it was clear it wasn't age appropriate period. Again, we are talking K-3!

You are being intellectually dishonest. This all came to a head because those who identify as LGBTQ have become more common and more parents are having to have to deal with it, and some of them don't want to. If teaching sex ed to kids had been an issue, this would have been codified long ago.

37 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

A small percentage is too many. Not age appropriate.

I don't even know what the hell you're arguing here. I already said I agreed K-3 should not be taught sex education, I was simply allowing that there are some on the fringe that might think they should. There are always people on the fringe. I was simply conceding that to show I didn't have my head in the sand about it.

If you're going to discuss this in good faith, then you're going to have to make a distinction between sexuality and identity/gender. 

 

[Leftfield 2,593]

15 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Some argue the Walt Disney Company injected itself in politics and tried to take some control of the democratic process in the state. 

"Some." Does that include you? So what if it injected itself into politics...companies do that all the time. And how did they try to take control of the democratic process? All they did was speak out. Just because their base of operations is in California, the don't have a right to speak out? Even though they have thousands of employees in Florida?

18 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Disney was self-governing. They have extraordinary powers. Some might say a bully pulpit. Some people probably do fear that much power.

This is so weak. Extraordinary powers? Their powers extend no further than their borders, and even then all the agreement allowed was for Disney to run their property as they see fit in terms of utilities and infrastructure. It's not as if they could write any new law they wanted. 

22 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Perhaps the parents who approve of the bill.

Oh, really? How does this benefit them? From their point of view, the bill benefits them, but how does the retaliation?

"Some." "Perhaps." You're very vague in your arguments. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

No. And that is a ridiculously simplistic way to view it.

Then what prevents it from being taught?

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Of course they could, and in most situations, should. But there may be times when a teacher has to address it sooner. I gave an example in another thread, but I'll give it here in case you didn't see it: One of my daughter's best friends is the child of a lesbian couple. It has never been a secret, but when some of the kids at school found out and it spread around, there were some that made fun of her about it. This was in 1st grade, if I remember correctly, but certainly before 3rd. Was the teacher supposed to say nothing in that situation, or should she have done what she did: explain to those other children that there are some kids that have two moms or two dads and that it's nothing someone should be teased or ashamed about?

Addressing sooner can mean different things. In the case you mention, why couldn't the bullying children not be escorted to a principal? Why couldn't the principal address the parents?

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

While kids that age don't have a concept of human sexuality, and shouldn't, they do know who they are attracted to. I had my first crush when I was in 1st grade. How old were you?

Totally irrelevant IMO, but 1st grade for me as well.

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

If a kid has a crush on another of the same sex, should a teacher not be able to intervene?

Why would they intervene? 

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

The way the law is written, not only can the teacher not discuss with a kid why they shouldn't be antagonizing a gay child, they can't even comfort the gay child by telling them they have nothing to be ashamed of.

They can discuss bullying. That doesn't require sex nor gender notation. And they can certainly ask the bullied child to speak up if it happens. 

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You make this all sound as though teaching sexuality is what anyone opposed to this bill is after, but you are misconstruing it. In fact you are now doing so deliberately because I've already explained otherwise in my previous post. 

If you oppose this bill then in my opinion you acknowledge the possibility it will be taught. And yes, I think that says you are ok with it. 

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

This all came to a head because those who identify as LGBTQ have become more common and more parents are having to have to deal with it, and some of them don't want to.

More common in K-3? Going back to a previous comment, isn't that a crush? And does it need addressing?

 

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

If teaching sex ed to kids had been an issue, this would have been codified long ago.

I had sex ed classes in 7th grade. Every few years it is taught earlier and earlier. Wonder why?

What is too early? IMO K-3 is too early. I am sure some feel pre-K is fine. It's nuts and needs to stop.

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I don't even know what the hell you're arguing here. I already said I agreed K-3 should not be taught sex education, I was simply allowing that there are some on the fringe that might think they should. There are always people on the fringe. I was simply conceding that to show I didn't have my head in the sand about it.

Pretty simple. K-3 isn't age appropriate for any conversation about sex or gender outside the home. That is why there are parents. It is their job not the schools.

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

If you're going to discuss this in good faith, then you're going to have to make a distinction between sexuality and identity/gender. 

I just did.

Edited April 26, 2022 by AUFAN78

[AUFAN78 3,894]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

"Some." Does that include you? So what if it injected itself into politics...companies do that all the time. And how did they try to take control of the democratic process? All they did was speak out. Just because their base of operations is in California, the don't have a right to speak out? Even though they have thousands of employees in Florida?

Yes. So I think we are seeing first hand what if. They tried to embarrass Desantis and the legislature and lied in the process. It was a bully tactic that included withholding funds. We'll see where it goes, but at present whose stock is plummeting?

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

This is so weak. Extraordinary powers? Their powers extend no further than their borders, and even then all the agreement allowed was for Disney to run their property as they see fit in terms of utilities and infrastructure. It's not as if they could write any new law they wanted. 

They functioned as their own government.

 “Disney is a guest in Florida,” Republican Rep. Randy Fine, who sponsored the bill, tweeted on Tuesday before the vote. “Today, we remind them.”

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Oh, really? How does this benefit them? From their point of view, the bill benefits them, but how does the retaliation?

Reaffirms bullying don't pay? Or payback is a bitch?

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

"Some." "Perhaps." You're very vague in your arguments. 

and? I don't have to write a book. 

[Leftfield 2,593]

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Then what prevents it from being taught?

The same thing that prevented it being taught before: state curricula guidelines, district policy, parent and watchdog groups. 

 

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Addressing sooner can mean different things. In the case you mention, why couldn't the bullying children not be escorted to a principal? Why couldn't the principal address the parents?

So the school is not allowed to instruct the student at all regarding that behavior? What if the parents are vehemently against homosexuals and teach their children it's just fine to ostracize or bully someone because of it? It just becomes an endless cycle of sending the kid to the principal and talking to the parents, and not helping the child adapt to a world full of people that are different?

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Totally irrelevant IMO, but 1st grade for me as well.

The fact that kids know who they're attracted to in 1st grade is irrelevant to a discussion about kids being aware of homosexuality in K-3rd grade? With that thought, along with this....

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

If you oppose this bill then in my opinion you acknowledge the possibility it will be taught. And yes, I think that says you are ok with it. 

...I don't even see the point of continuing. You're going to continue to misrepresent my points. Go ahead and pretend that I'm ok with young children actually learning sex education if it makes you feel better. Might as well join the Mensa crowd hanging "PedoWorld" banners in front of Disney.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Leftfield

[AU9377 4,925]

10 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I disagree.

Now I am confused on your position? So you don't have a problem with the bill excluding sex education for K-3?

More confusion. So parents are wrong to be alarmed that their K-3 children are being taught sex education? 

I somewhat agree with this statement, but some feel Walt Disney Company injected itself in politics and tried to take some control of the democratic process in the state. 

Noted.

I have a hard time believing that you are confused as to my position.  Where are kids K-3 being taught sex education in Florida?  The answer is nowhere.

Even though this "problem" doesn't currently exist in Florida, the governor calls a special session to pass a bill addressing the matter.  When has this been done before?

Should bills be passed addressing opposition to the Russian invasion of Miami?  There is no invasion at this time, but if you say no, you must be in favor of a Russian invasion.  Is that not the same line of thought?

This is simply DeSantis seeing an opportunity to get national attention and present himself as saving the children in some way from these deviants that are out there trying to harm our children.  Unfortunately, many will buy into the charade.

Edited April 26, 2022 by AU9377

[homersapien 11,366]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I have a hard time believing that you are confused as to my position.  Where are kids K-3 being taught sex education in Florida?  The answer is nowhere.

Even though this "problem" doesn't currently exist in Florida, the governor calls a special session to pass a bill addressing the matter.  When has this been done before?

Should bills be passed addressing opposition to the Russian invasion of Miami?  There is no invasion at this time, but if you say no, you must be in favor of a Russian invasion.  Is that not the same line of thought?

This is simply DeSantis seeing an opportunity to get national attention and present himself as saving the children in some way from these deviants that are out there trying to harm our children.  Unfortunately, many will buy into the charade.

MAGAs really, really enjoy Kabuki theater.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,894]

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

The same thing that prevented it being taught before: state curricula guidelines, district policy, parent and watchdog groups. 

Which obviously failed. Had it not been for COVID and parents getting a better look at what their children were learning K-3, then speaking out, this legislation wouldn't have happened.

 

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

So the school is not allowed to instruct the student at all regarding that behavior? What if the parents are vehemently against homosexuals and teach their children it's just fine to ostracize or bully someone because of it? It just becomes an endless cycle of sending the kid to the principal and talking to the parents, and not helping the child adapt to a world full of people that are different?

No. It is not the schools place. Bullying isn't allowed period! No, repeated trips to a principal can and often do lead to expulsion and rightfully so. You are be overly dramatic. This is K-3!

 

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

The fact that kids know who they're attracted to in 1st grade is irrelevant to a discussion about kids being aware of homosexuality in K-3rd grade?

First I don't believe kids that age are truly aware of homosexuality and again if they have any curiosities that should be addressed by parents.

 

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

.I don't even see the point of continuing. You're going to continue to misrepresent my points. Go ahead and pretend that I'm ok with young children actually learning sex education if it makes you feel better. Might as well join the Mensa crowd hanging "PedoWorld" banners in front of Disney.

You've yet to make a good argument, so quitting sounds right. Seriously, I listened and responded with truth even in light of some derogatory comments. You've failed to change my mind on anything. Congratulations?

And just for fun, Disney is hiring for drama roles. Just saying.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I have a hard time believing that you are confused as to my position.  Where are kids K-3 being taught sex education in Florida?  The answer is nowhere.

Even though this "problem" doesn't currently exist in Florida, the governor calls a special session to pass a bill addressing the matter.  When has this been done before?

Should bills be passed addressing opposition to the Russian invasion of Miami?  There is no invasion at this time, but if you say no, you must be in favor of a Russian invasion.  Is that not the same line of thought?

This is simply DeSantis seeing an opportunity to get national attention and present himself as saving the children in some way from these deviants that are out there trying to harm our children.  Unfortunately, many will buy into the charade.

Once the cancer is established it is very difficult to permanently excise it.  Good for DeSantis. We love him here. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I have a hard time believing that you are confused as to my position.  Where are kids K-3 being taught sex education in Florida?  The answer is nowhere.

First your answer is false. Secondly, if it is not happening why are you so upset? 

 

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Even though this "problem" doesn't currently exist in Florida, the governor calls a special session to pass a bill addressing the matter.  When has this been done before?

The problem exists, he passed the bill, get over it. 

 

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Should bills be passed addressing opposition to the Russian invasion of Miami?  There is no invasion at this time, but if you say no, you must be in favor of a Russian invasion.  Is that not the same line of thought?

Like I told lefty, Disney is hiring for drama roles. You're perfect!

 

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

This is simply DeSantis seeing an opportunity to get national attention and present himself as saving the children in some way from these deviants that are out there trying to harm our children.  Unfortunately, many will buy into the charade.

And many deny what parents see firsthand. But parents are fed up and are asking for help. Desantis listened and acted. You are outraged and I can't make you see the truth when you get your news from BS platforms like CNN and blindly accept it. Seek truth! 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I have a hard time believing that you are confused as to my position.  Where are kids K-3 being taught sex education in Florida?  The answer is nowhere.

Not Florida, but I've been talking to a friend of mine living in Alabama of all places where this crap was being taught to his 1st or 2nd grader.  Not sex ed per se (the mechanics of how babies are made), but stuff about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Needless to say, he and his wife have decided to pull their kids when this year is finished in a few weeks and put them in a private school next year. And I get it.  You don't send a kindergartener or young elementary school kid to school to learn this stuff.  You send them there to learn reading, math,  how to write their letters and numbers, and so on.  

There's some kind of odd disconnect to me that the same people who don't think a coach should be praying at midfield by himself (but later joined voluntarily by some of the players) because of how much influence teachers and coaches have over impressionable high schoolers, think it's a terrible thing that a 25-year old recent graduate with a minor in gender theory can't teach your 6-year old about different types of sexuality and transgender concepts.

[Leftfield 2,593]

25 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Which obviously failed. Had it not been for COVID and parents getting a better look at what their children were learning K-3, then speaking out, this legislation wouldn't have happened.

 

No. It is not the schools place. Bullying isn't allowed period! No, repeated trips to a principal can and often do lead to expulsion and rightfully so. You are be overly dramatic. This is K-3!

You're the one up-in-arms for legislation against something that isn't even a problem, yet I'm the one that's dramatic? Makes sense.

32 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

No. It is not the schools place. Bullying isn't allowed period! No, repeated trips to a principal can and often do lead to expulsion and rightfully so. You are be overly dramatic. This is K-3!

But if the law does not allow the school to address why the bullying isn't allowed, how can he be legally be removed from the school? Isn't punishment a form of instruction as to what is right or wrong?  Do you really think an unscrupulous lawyer won't seize on an argument like this, or that an activist group won't use the vagueness of the law as a bludgeon against whatever they oppose? I guess you'll be fine with it if a teacher reads a story about a Mom, Dad, and their kids going on vacation and gets sued by a homosexual couple?

The reason this is wrong is because it makes the status quo state law. Well, the status quo is biased and makes some children feel ostracized. If it had been written for the goal being espoused, it would have been more specific, and would not put a teacher at risk for being sued even if they just happen to mention a student's gay parents. If they want to make the law say specifically what curricula can be taught, hey, I'm all for it, though using state law for that is ridiculously cumbersome.

The simple fact is this was rushed through as a political weapon and nobody could be bothered to think about it.

 

[Leftfield 2,593]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Not Florida, but I've been talking to a friend of mine living in Alabama of all places where this crap was being taught to his 1st or 2nd grader.  Not sex ed per se (the mechanics of how babies are made), but stuff about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Needless to say, he and his wife have decided to pull their kids when this year is finished in a few weeks and put them in a private school next year. And I get it.  You don't send a kindergartener or young elementary school kid to school to learn this stuff.  You send them there to learn reading, math,  how to write their letters and numbers, and so on.  

There's some kind of odd disconnect to me that the same people who don't think a coach should be praying at midfield by himself (but later joined voluntarily by some of the players) because of how much influence teachers and coaches have over impressionable high schoolers, think it's a terrible thing that a 25-year old recent graduate with a minor in gender theory can't teach your 6-year old about different types of sexuality and transgender concepts.

Would be very curious to hear if what was being taught was school-sanctioned, or a rogue teacher. I don't doubt what you are saying, just would like to know the specifics.

I am not against limiting what teachers can teach kids about these issues, but the Florida law as written is untenable.

Also, I have no problem at all with that coach praying at mid-field and inviting others to join. I fully support and even encourage it. The type of people who protest that are the activist reactionaries that give ordinary, level-headed social liberals a bad name.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Would be very curious to hear if what was being taught was school-sanctioned, or a rogue teacher. I don't doubt what you are saying, just would like to know the specifics.

I don't know if it was school sanctioned in an explicit sense, but when confronted by parents, the principal chose to do nothing about it and downplay the parents' concerns.  So even if it's not an official part of the curriculum it's being tacitly supported/permitted.

 

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

I am not against limiting what teachers can teach kids about these issues, but the Florida law as written is untenable.

I will agree that portions of the FL law are poorly written and overly vague.

 

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Also, I have no problem at all with that coach praying at mid-field and inviting others to join. I fully support and even encourage it. The type of people who protest that are the activist reactionaries that give ordinary, level-headed social liberals a bad name.

I would say that I'm ok with the coach praying at midfield and if some kids want to join him of their own accord, so be it.  But either way, it's not some end of days thing people need to get super worked up over imo.

[homersapien 11,366]

23 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Not Florida, but I've been talking to a friend of mine living in Alabama of all places where this crap was being taught to his 1st or 2nd grader.  Not sex ed per se (the mechanics of how babies are made), but stuff about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Needless to say, he and his wife have decided to pull their kids when this year is finished in a few weeks and put them in a private school next year. And I get it.  You don't send a kindergartener or young elementary school kid to school to learn this stuff.  You send them there to learn reading, math,  how to write their letters and numbers, and so on.  

There's some kind of odd disconnect to me that the same people who don't think a coach should be praying at midfield by himself (but later joined voluntarily by some of the players) because of how much influence teachers and coaches have over impressionable high schoolers, think it's a terrible thing that a 25-year old recent graduate with a minor in gender theory can't teach your 6-year old about different types of sexuality and transgender concepts.

Could you be more specific regarding "stuff"?

Was the teacher possibly addressing the fact one of the kids had two "mothers" or two "fathers" and the teacher was making the point that such a thing was possible (and OK), in an effort to stop or prevent ridicule or bullying of said kid?

I can readily accept that as a possibility.  It's much harder for me to imagine a first or second grade teacher introducing or alluding to the subject of homosexuality without a good reason to do so.

 

As for the coach praying:

1. A coach is in a position of authority by definition and so the element of coercion exists regardless of how many kids approve.
2. It's a form of Christo fascism.  It's hard to imagine a Muslim or Buddhist or Wiccan would be allowed equal latitude to do that.
3. Public displays of religion is proselytizing by it's very nature.
4. It's tacky. (Jesus himself disapproved).
5. Most importantly, it's unconstitutional.

(If the SCOTUS disapproves, that takes us directly back to reason #3.  And it would be a wrong outcome.)

 

P.S.:  At least some of the books that DeSantis is trying to ban do no more than what I described in my hypothetical.

Edited April 27, 2022 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Could you be more specific that "stuff"?

Was the teacher possibly addressing the fact one of the kids had two "mothers" or two "fathers" and the teacher was making the point that such a thing was possible (and OK), in an effort to stop or prevent ridicule or bullying of said kid?

I can readily accept that as a possibility.  It's much harder for me to imagine a first or second grade teacher introducing the subject of homosexuality without a good reason to do so.

I don't have a ton of specifics except that the teacher chose a book to read to the class that got into it (with Q&A after).  It wasn't to address ridicule or bullying of any kind.

[homersapien 11,366]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't have a ton of specifics except that the teacher chose a book to read to the class that got into it (with Q&A after).  It wasn't to address ridicule or bullying of any kind.

Do you know what book?

Again, there are kids with two "mommies" or two "daddies".

If the lesson/book simply acknowledges that reality,  that's not "indoctrination" IMO.  It's preparing kids to be empathetic, tolerant and accepting.

I think that's one of the sources of the conflict.  IMO, many of these parent are against that tolerance and acceptance, because they are not tolerant and accepting themselves.  

Their lack of empathy, tolerance and acceptance for homosexuals (in this case) is what makes them perceive of this a threat to their children.  That, plus the simple ignorance of thinking that children can be "taught" to be homosexual, etc.

But teaching empathy, tolerance and acceptance is not a threat to their children.  Just the opposite.  It's good for their children as well as the rest of society.

It's certainly not necessary to fear, ridicule or hate homosexuals (in this case) in order to prevent becoming one. 

That happens all by itself via nature (or 'God' if you prefer).

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

No, I don’t. 

But here’s the issue. Most of these parents aren’t trying to shelter their kids from the realities of society and culture forever. They just object to some of this stuff being introduced to their kids at a certain age - by the state, framed by the values of the state, that often undermines the values and morals of their family. As poorly written as the FL law may be, it’s not a blanket law covering k-12. It’s for kids up to 3rd grade. Simply “can you hold off trying to inculcate your spin on this heated subject until the kids are a bit older?”  If you wouldn’t want a teacher telling kids about how to give their hearts to Jesus in a classroom of young impressionable kids who are a captive audience, surely you can understand why someone might not want some social progressive telling their kids what to think about gender identity. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You're the one up-in-arms for legislation against something that isn't even a problem, yet I'm the one that's dramatic? Makes sense.

Why some of you can't get it through your heads that this is a problem, not just in Florida but nationally, I don't know. I suspect it is your news source which is solvable if you truly care. You have been provided ample evidence on this forum and it is widely available in other platforms. It is happening.

 

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

But if the law does not allow the school to address why the bullying isn't allowed, how can he be legally be removed from the school? Isn't punishment a form of instruction as to what is right or wrong?  

Any school can address bullying. Taking action against this type activity can and should lead to punishment.

 

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Do you really think an unscrupulous lawyer won't seize on an argument like this, or that an activist group won't use the vagueness of the law as a bludgeon against whatever they oppose?

I am betting on a loss if they try a bullying case, but let them try. We'll see what happens.

 

5 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I guess you'll be fine with it if a teacher reads a story about a Mom, Dad, and their kids going on vacation and gets sued by a homosexual couple?

I look forward to the case. Please keep me informed of the verdict in case I miss it. I agree it would be interesting.

 

5 hours ago, Leftfield said:

The reason this is wrong is because it makes the status quo state law. Well, the status quo is biased and makes some children feel ostracized. If it had been written for the goal being espoused, it would have been more specific, and would not put a teacher at risk for being sued even if they just happen to mention a student's gay parents. If they want to make the law say specifically what curricula can be taught, hey, I'm all for it, though using state law for that is ridiculously cumbersome.

Why would a teacher be discussing gay parents to K-3 children? IMO it isn't age appropriate. I haven't read the entire law, but thought it addressed what can and more importantly cannot be taught. If not, I agree it should be clear.

 

5 hours ago, Leftfield said:

The simple fact is this was rushed through as a political weapon and nobody could be bothered to think about it.

I don't know that this is the proper narrative. I have little doubt certain groups are espousing it, but that doesn't make it true.

[Leftfield 2,593]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

As for the coach praying:

1. A coach is in a position of authority by definition and so the element of coercion exists regardless of how many kids approve.
2. It's a form of Christo fascism.  It's hard to imagine a Muslim or Buddhist or Wiccan would be allowed equal latitude to do that.
3. Public displays of religion is proselytizing by it's very nature.
4. It's tacky. (Jesus himself disapproved).
5. Most importantly, it's unconstitutional.

(If the SCOTUS disapproves, that takes us directly back to reason #3.  And it would be a wrong outcome.)

Just looked this up, because I had only heard about it and not read. For some reason I had it in my head that this was something outside of school. I do agree that a public school employee in any capacity cannot be leading it.

With that said, in general I don't have a problem with it. I am not religious, and my list of issues with what people do in the name of organized religion is lengthy, but I also recognize the good it can do. Even if I don't share in the belief, a group gathering to humble themselves and give thanks has a beauty to it.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Leftfield

[TexasTiger 12,831]

Moronic guvner helps company he seeks to harm— 🧵

 

[AU9377 4,925]

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

First your answer is false. Secondly, if it is not happening why are you so upset? 

 

The problem exists, he passed the bill, get over it. 

 

Like I told lefty, Disney is hiring for drama roles. You're perfect!

 

And many deny what parents see firsthand. But parents are fed up and are asking for help. Desantis listened and acted. You are outraged and I can't make you see the truth when you get your news from BS platforms like CNN and blindly accept it. Seek truth! 

 

All that and still not one example of where the problem exists in Florida/.

[AU9377 4,925]

The issue really isn't this particular law being passed.   The issue is why was there such a pressing need to pass this law that there had to be a special session?  The only real reason is DeSantis using the culture war political playbook.  I have never met anyone that thought a child in the first grade should be counseled in some way by their teacher at school concerning gender issues.  You would be hard pressed to find a teacher that would want to touch that issue in high school, much less grammar school.  If this was 30 years ago, DeSantis would be using the "gays" as the enemy.  That doesn't work now that 70% of Americans favor gay marriage.  A few years before that it would have been the "blacks."

DeSantis will follow his political idol's playbook.  He will run any campaign he enters on everything but real issues.  Everything is about "us" and "them" and why "they" are out to get "us".

[AU9377 4,925]

9 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Not Florida, but I've been talking to a friend of mine living in Alabama of all places where this crap was being taught to his 1st or 2nd grader.  Not sex ed per se (the mechanics of how babies are made), but stuff about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Needless to say, he and his wife have decided to pull their kids when this year is finished in a few weeks and put them in a private school next year. And I get it.  You don't send a kindergartener or young elementary school kid to school to learn this stuff.  You send them there to learn reading, math,  how to write their letters and numbers, and so on.  

There's some kind of odd disconnect to me that the same people who don't think a coach should be praying at midfield by himself (but later joined voluntarily by some of the players) because of how much influence teachers and coaches have over impressionable high schoolers, think it's a terrible thing that a 25-year old recent graduate with a minor in gender theory can't teach your 6-year old about different types of sexuality and transgender concepts.

I get what you are saying.  However, I don't quite understand what you mean by it being "taught" in 1st or 2nd grade.  How does one teach that?

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Just looked this up, because I had only heard about it and not read. For some reason I had it in my head that this was something outside of school. I do agree that a public school employee in any capacity cannot be leading it.

With that said, in general I don't have a problem with it. I am not religious, and my list of issues with what people do in the name of organized religion is lengthy, but I also recognize the good it can do. Even if I don't share in the belief, a group gathering to humble themselves and give thanks has a beauty to it.

I work now for a religiously affiliated organization and the prayers before department meetings used to be so weird to me. I mean, I knew that I was accepting a job with a religious bent to it, but it was still quite a jolt coming from my previous employer, a decidedly progressive software company. But I noticed common themes in the prayers and they were almost totally applicable to everyone in the room, minus who they were directed to. Just asking for things we all want, and expressing gratitude for things we all have, and showing concern for things we are all concerned about. There's no pressure to participate, only to respect the ritual. I've grown to appreciate it. Certainly more than all the banal crap that gets discussed afterward, lol.