sex ed.

When Caesar intrudes into the area given to us by God, we should follow Peter's rule, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

 

Socialism at its worst.

 

Why do you not want the state to teach your children about sex but do want them to teach them how to pray?

 

Never heard that one, when did people start wanting the state to teach children how to pray? To restore the Right to pray sure, but teach them how?

 

This story is not what WND and similar publications are claiming.

In 2001, a mental health counselor received permission from the principle and staff to administer a psychological survey to 1st, 3rd, and 5th graders. Letters and consent forms were sent to parents (in addition to warning of the nature of the survey, the letter also gave instructions to parents on obtaining further information on the survey if they wished). All the parents except one signed and returned the consent form.

Afterwards, some of the parents were unhappy with the specific questions asked on the survey. The parents sued in federal court, claiming their Amendment XIV rights of not being deprived "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." were violated.

In fact, the parents could have gotten information on the exact nature of questions asked, but apparantly none bothered to do so. Also, if they were concerned, they could have refused to allow their children to participate, but they all consented.

This case was NOT about sex ed. It wasn't even about teaching something without consent. In this case, informed consent was expressly given by the parents. This is simply a case of parental remorse.

Oh, btw, the federal court dismissed the state claims, on the grounds that those claims belong in the state courts, not th efederal courts. So it seems that there was no "liberal activism" at all, but instead an affirmation of states' rights. Of course, WND and similar publications would never print a story where a "left coast" court upheld states rights.

 

When someone leads a group in prayer it serves as a model. Christ gave us His own model (the Lord's prayer) which of course is different for Protestants and Catholics. Children might tend to emulate that person's style of prayer (whether it be Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, etc.) especially younger children.

One of the issues that has been debated is whether a principle or teacher should say a prayer at the beginning of the day. Also, whether someone should lead in prayer at athletic events, etc.

 

Johnv,

thanks for clearing up what the original case is about. But does that change what the 9th Circuit Court said? That parents are not the final authority on what is taught to their own children? I used different wording, but that is essentially what the 9th Court said......

right?

It is that which I object to. I understand if the original case was not as we've been hearing, since those sorts of details tend to get glossed over when it becomes national news later on.

 

Exactly, It is not like they just said, "sorry take it to the state court". They made a broad sweaping declaration on what kind of rights a parent does not have.

 

From focus on the family "Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, said prior to administering the survey, the district mailed a letter to the parents of the children, who ranged in age from 7 to 10.

But the letter, he said, simply described the survey as establishing "a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma."

"The letter," Fahling said, "did not disclose that, of the 79 questions, the children would be asked 10 questions rating areas such as: touching my private parts, thinking about having sex, having sex feelings in my body and can’t stop thinking about sex.

Staver was explosive in his disgust.

"Understand that these are 7-year-old children that are being asked intrusive and controversial and inappropriate questions about sexual behavior," Staver said. "And this judge says, 'That's OK.' Well, it's not OK!"

Fahling said the decision puts the schools firmly in control.

"The court has held that once parents send their children to public schools the children are essentially guinea pigs that the school may do with as they please," he said.

Fahling also said the judge didn't rely upon law for his decision — he cited a few cases and tried to make them fit his predetermined conclusions.

"The court failed even to consider the deception of the school in failing to disclose that the children would be exposed to questions about sex," he said.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, called the ruling "an egregious example of judicial tyranny.""----------------------------------------------------------

According to this Jhonv, the school was not forth comming and misled the parents. You may think it is reasoanable to think that some parents would give full consent after being fully informed, and then cry about it later, but that does not seem reasonable to me. This account says that the parents were not given accurate info on the nature of the questionare.

 

John,

I am not certain that you cleared up very much . . .

Nor does a Senator agree with you.

BTW, I disagree with your interpretation.

 

Remember this is the 9th Circuit, the group that brought you its attempts to outlaw saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Anything from that bunch can't be considered out of the ordinary.

 

Further,

Having actually read most of the court document, I am appalled that you would misrepresent what actually transpired:

Are you saying that it was OK for an un-licensed VOLUNTEER to use students for a personal project?

FURTHER the consent form NEVER reveals that a substantive portion of the questionaire will deal ONLY WITH SEXUAL questions. Consent form provided below:

web page

 

John

Nowhere does the court document support what you allege. Now I realize that you might be privy to information that the courts did not have. If you do have information that contradicts what the court states happened, please share that with us. Please show us that you have better information? Please show us that we are addressing a different case? Show us that the case you were referencing was not from the Ninth Circuit?

Then I would be willing to apologize for being so stern.

However, I do feel shocked at what you published verses what the court published.

 

Don't insult the Scandinavian countries. They would tell you that is communism.

 

Not exactly. The court dismissed their claim based on it not falling under Amendment XIV.

In actual fact, the parents did consent to the surveys their children took part in, so the "final authority" issue here wasn't at issue at all.

Actually, that's defacto what happenned. It was dismissed at the federal level. The parents retain the right to file those specific state issues in the state courts.

The documents of the case are available onine, I believe. I don't have a link, but I'm sure it can be accessed via a google search.

 

John

our problem is with what the 9th Circuit court said about it......that parents do not have exclusive rights over the education of their children.

THIS is whats wrong here. Do you not see this?

I do SO have exclusive rights over what my kids learn!

Now, whether the actual court case was dropped or not, whether the parents originally consented in a vaguely worded consent form or not, really makes no difference here.

 

Is that what they said, or is that what the source said that they said? I don't like the 9th Circuit Court any better than anyone here, but I think I would have to read the ruling before I made a decision. If they just threw it out because it wasn't a federal case that is an entirely different matter.

I do think that the survey should not have been administered in that fashion, and think that perhaps there should be an ethics review of it. Because children are so vulnerable to exploitation there are strict guidelines in place for getting informed consent from parents and assent from the child. I don't think these guidelines were followed properly.

 

It absolutely does make a difference in this case. It was pertinent to why the parents lost their case. What you're doing is taking a snippet of court opinion and making a mountain out of it. You're doing the same thing that people like David Barton do when they claim that a judge "ruled" that the US is a "Christian nation" (in fact, no ruling was ever made). Likewise here, the court did not "rule" that parents are not the final authority over their children.

Don't get me wrong I have no great love for the 9th circuit court, but this is a clear case of the facts of the case being distorted to an extent that they don't even accurately resemble the case at all.

 

That is actually what I was corrected with in PMs this morning.

I had earlier said that the 9th Circuit court declared parents to not have the "final say" in their children's education. Someone PMed me to inform me that the court had actually said that "parents do not have EXCLUSIVE rights over their children's education."

SInce its a difference that makes no difference, Id object just as strenuously either way.


And you are right, I tend to just see "9th Circuit Court" and assume Im going to disagree with them. But I have tried to find out the truth in this.