StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
You're absolutely right. I stand corrected. You know it's amazing how someone who has been a Baptist his whole life can still be suprised by something from the Bible. It's a humbling experience.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
sex ed.
- Thread starter Servent
- Start date
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Let me just say that this case ought to be a wake up call to parents. Pay attention to what is going on at school! You can't possibly know what is happening if you never show your face their except for open house. You have to walk in and get to know the staff. Even then things will go on that you like, but since you are there all the time and they know you, you will be given the opportunity to complain and they won't just put you off as another yapping parent.
About this case in particular, if I had been given a consent form that specifically told me that my child might be "uncomfortable" in answering sone of the questions and that if that occurs the survey sponser "will assist in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary", I'd be down at the school asking just what they were up to. Then, if I wasn't satisfied I wouldn't have signed. This letter might not have specifically told the parents that their kids were going to be asked about sex, but they were told enough to ask more questions. They simply weren't paying close enough attention.(parents not paying attention to what's going on in school is a rant for another day)
While I don't necessarily agree with the judge's opinion in this case, I do agree that more specific information was available to any parent who was interested enough to ask questions before they signed the consent form! But once they failed to ask those questions and willingly signed the consent form, they then lost the right to complain about what the survey said.
Look at it this way. When you enroll your child in school(public or private) you give over a lot of your individual choices to that school. You give up the right to choose if you child learns addition first or subtraction. You give up the right to choose whether he has lunch at noon or if his teacher is gay or straight. All these decisions you give over to whoever runs the school.
This ruling agree that every parent had the right to determine in what kind of school their kids will attend. But once that choice is made, they can't go in and pick and choose what their kid will or will not learn.(at least in public school)
The big point here is that these parents signed the form and have no retroactive right to now go back and seek damages because they didn't stop to consider the implications of the entire form.
El Guero, the court didn't say the parents had no rights. It said that by enrolling their kids in public school they handed over those rights to the school. If they had wanted to keep those rights of individual choice then they shouldn't have enrolled the kids in school at the start.
Now as far as the sex questions in the survey go--I wouldn't want my first or third grader exposed to those questions. My fifth grader, I would only be upset over the questions that seem to lead him/her to ideas that aren't generic and ae quite a bit to personal. Specifically the questions about touching other people, thinking about sex all the time and touching oneself to much. These questions perhaps could lead to the behavior described, which probably isn't the intent of the surveyors.
But then again, I wouldn't have signed the form to start with.
About this case in particular, if I had been given a consent form that specifically told me that my child might be "uncomfortable" in answering sone of the questions and that if that occurs the survey sponser "will assist in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary", I'd be down at the school asking just what they were up to. Then, if I wasn't satisfied I wouldn't have signed. This letter might not have specifically told the parents that their kids were going to be asked about sex, but they were told enough to ask more questions. They simply weren't paying close enough attention.(parents not paying attention to what's going on in school is a rant for another day)
While I don't necessarily agree with the judge's opinion in this case, I do agree that more specific information was available to any parent who was interested enough to ask questions before they signed the consent form! But once they failed to ask those questions and willingly signed the consent form, they then lost the right to complain about what the survey said.
Look at it this way. When you enroll your child in school(public or private) you give over a lot of your individual choices to that school. You give up the right to choose if you child learns addition first or subtraction. You give up the right to choose whether he has lunch at noon or if his teacher is gay or straight. All these decisions you give over to whoever runs the school.
This ruling agree that every parent had the right to determine in what kind of school their kids will attend. But once that choice is made, they can't go in and pick and choose what their kid will or will not learn.(at least in public school)
The big point here is that these parents signed the form and have no retroactive right to now go back and seek damages because they didn't stop to consider the implications of the entire form.
El Guero, the court didn't say the parents had no rights. It said that by enrolling their kids in public school they handed over those rights to the school. If they had wanted to keep those rights of individual choice then they shouldn't have enrolled the kids in school at the start.
Now as far as the sex questions in the survey go--I wouldn't want my first or third grader exposed to those questions. My fifth grader, I would only be upset over the questions that seem to lead him/her to ideas that aren't generic and ae quite a bit to personal. Specifically the questions about touching other people, thinking about sex all the time and touching oneself to much. These questions perhaps could lead to the behavior described, which probably isn't the intent of the surveyors.
But then again, I wouldn't have signed the form to start with.
Get involved! Let it motivate you. You know, the political liberals have learned how to hammer at our laws by constantly re-introducing bills until part or all of them finally slip through.
They have a long-term plan, when conservatives have traditionally been much more short-sighted.
They have a long-term plan, when conservatives have traditionally been much more short-sighted.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
El Guero, I suppose you are implying that I didn't read the documents. Well I did. This is going to be another one of those times when we have to agree to disagree.
Before then though, those little dots between the words parent have no.....rights, left out a very important adjective. That adjective is exclusive. If you think by an means that you have exclusive rights to the things your child learns, you better make sure they don't stand next to my kids in the lunch line. If they do my kids are liable to teach yours certain words that you might not want your kids to learn. Along with the words they'll teach the proper usage and meanings of each. And they can do it in five minutes time.(Guess where my kids learned 'em, uh huh, that same lunch line.)
The point is, you can't protect your kids from everything. You have to proactive, you have to stand in those lunch lines with your kids. I can't begin to express the difference it makes for a parent just to come in and eat lunch and be an example. It might not be fair and I'm offended too, but just feeling offended isn't going to change things. We have to get off our duffs and actually put some energy and maybe even money where our mouths are!
Before then though, those little dots between the words parent have no.....rights, left out a very important adjective. That adjective is exclusive. If you think by an means that you have exclusive rights to the things your child learns, you better make sure they don't stand next to my kids in the lunch line. If they do my kids are liable to teach yours certain words that you might not want your kids to learn. Along with the words they'll teach the proper usage and meanings of each. And they can do it in five minutes time.(Guess where my kids learned 'em, uh huh, that same lunch line.)
The point is, you can't protect your kids from everything. You have to proactive, you have to stand in those lunch lines with your kids. I can't begin to express the difference it makes for a parent just to come in and eat lunch and be an example. It might not be fair and I'm offended too, but just feeling offended isn't going to change things. We have to get off our duffs and actually put some energy and maybe even money where our mouths are!
Yea, menageriekeeper, they also said the parents had "no due process", in other words, they can never come to the courts over this type issue. They judge shut all parents out over issue of content spoken in schools. This one claim set the school up as all powerful when it come to extracuricular content spoken of the cuff, they don't even need a permission slip in this line of thinking. That is scary given that almost every significant right we have no is in the hands of the most powerful branch of government, the courts.
No, it wasn't, it was about whether the school violated the Amendment XIV rights of parents by administering a survey (which, btw, was administered only to students whose parents gave written consent to).
Also false. It said that they had no right based on their claim.
You are offended over something that didn't exist.
That's not what they said. The parents claimed their Amendment XVI ("due process) rights were violated. The court said that the actions of the school did not violate their "due process" rights. Given that the parents consented to the survey in the first place, the decision makes sense.
Also false. The school obtained parental permission to administer the survey.
"We conclude only that the par-ents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent thepublic schools from providing information on that subject totheir students in any forum or manner they select. We furtherhold that a psychological survey is a reasonable state actionpursuant to legitimate educational as well as health and wel-fare interests of the state. Accordingly, the parent-appellantshave failed to state a federal claim upon which relief may begranted. The decision of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.15083FIELDSv. "PALMDALESCHOOLDIST."------------------------------------------------------
Johnv, this is from the opinion. It say that the schools can present any info on this subject (sex) in any manner they choose. There is no due process by which the parents can use the courts to try and stop them. If the highest court in the area says schools can give any sex info in anyway they choose and parents can't stop them, then that sets a precedent and lower courts may not here complaints of this nature based on this precedent. This is not limited to arguments based on amendmant 14. It say now constitutional right whatsoever. You don't see a problem with this?
"Also false. The school obtained parental permission to administer the survey. "------------------------------------------------------------
Johnv, you need to read the post slower before you call something false. I did not say that the parents did not receive a permission slip of sorts to sign, I said that if the school is granted the right to give any sex information in any manner they choose buy the court, then it is no longer necessarey for them to get premission fromt he parents. Why would they school need permission if the court say that the school can give any sex info in anyway they want and the parents have no constitutional right at all in any part of the constitution to do anything about it.
Johnv, you are so caught up in the legal technicalities of the specific argument the parents used that you have failt to see their are things in the opinion that are truely alarming and of great concern to christian parents. The judge said alot more than what was necessary to simply tell the parents their particular argument was faulty, he made some very broad and sweeping declarations. It was not necessary for him to do this just to deal with an amemdment 14 argument. But the 9th is known for judicial acitvisim, so whats new?
Johnv, this is from the opinion. It say that the schools can present any info on this subject (sex) in any manner they choose. There is no due process by which the parents can use the courts to try and stop them. If the highest court in the area says schools can give any sex info in anyway they choose and parents can't stop them, then that sets a precedent and lower courts may not here complaints of this nature based on this precedent. This is not limited to arguments based on amendmant 14. It say now constitutional right whatsoever. You don't see a problem with this?
"Also false. The school obtained parental permission to administer the survey. "------------------------------------------------------------
Johnv, you need to read the post slower before you call something false. I did not say that the parents did not receive a permission slip of sorts to sign, I said that if the school is granted the right to give any sex information in any manner they choose buy the court, then it is no longer necessarey for them to get premission fromt he parents. Why would they school need permission if the court say that the school can give any sex info in anyway they want and the parents have no constitutional right at all in any part of the constitution to do anything about it.
Johnv, you are so caught up in the legal technicalities of the specific argument the parents used that you have failt to see their are things in the opinion that are truely alarming and of great concern to christian parents. The judge said alot more than what was necessary to simply tell the parents their particular argument was faulty, he made some very broad and sweeping declarations. It was not necessary for him to do this just to deal with an amemdment 14 argument. But the 9th is known for judicial acitvisim, so whats new?
menageriekeeper
Active Member
But Bunyon, parents do have a way to stop the schools from presenting sexual material. It's called school board meetings and city council meeting. Everything doesn't have to go through the court system.
I've been busy looking at our systems method and policies of children who have disabilities. I've found two things: 1. the first method of getting something changed on an individual basis is not a lawsuit. There is a due process system set up for disability complaints outside the courts. Court can come later if absolutely necessary. 2. N
NE goes to the school board meetings! How do parents think they can tell what is going on with the folks responsible for their schools if they never show up for the meetings?
The real point I'm trying to make here isn't that the judge was right. The point is, the parents could have stopped this in it's tracks by not signing that consent form. If someone had been paying attention at the board meetings they might could have stopped it cold then. Most likely though, no one cared enough to pay attention until after the fact. Then they want the courts to fix what they should have stopped before it ever started.
Americans here lately, want someone else(courts) to do the work for them. The court system should be a last resort, not a first one.
I've been busy looking at our systems method and policies of children who have disabilities. I've found two things: 1. the first method of getting something changed on an individual basis is not a lawsuit. There is a due process system set up for disability complaints outside the courts. Court can come later if absolutely necessary. 2. N
NE goes to the school board meetings! How do parents think they can tell what is going on with the folks responsible for their schools if they never show up for the meetings?The real point I'm trying to make here isn't that the judge was right. The point is, the parents could have stopped this in it's tracks by not signing that consent form. If someone had been paying attention at the board meetings they might could have stopped it cold then. Most likely though, no one cared enough to pay attention until after the fact. Then they want the courts to fix what they should have stopped before it ever started.
Americans here lately, want someone else(courts) to do the work for them. The court system should be a last resort, not a first one.
I agree with you compeletly. And I will even conceed that perhaps the parent's lawyer did not use the proper legal argument as Johnv states.
But even so, the Judge said alot more than he shoud have said or needed to say. He made a broad sweaping declaration that really went way beyond the the parameters of the case. I think this can be used as precedent, and I think it has a negitive effect on our legal standing with our kids and their schools. This is way more significant than just parents over reacting, if they did in fact over react.
I don't advocate a lawsuit as a first line of defence, and if I were the parents, I would simply not sign a consent form again. But this is bigger than that. At least for the folks living in the 9th circuit.
But even so, the Judge said alot more than he shoud have said or needed to say. He made a broad sweaping declaration that really went way beyond the the parameters of the case. I think this can be used as precedent, and I think it has a negitive effect on our legal standing with our kids and their schools. This is way more significant than just parents over reacting, if they did in fact over react.
I don't advocate a lawsuit as a first line of defence, and if I were the parents, I would simply not sign a consent form again. But this is bigger than that. At least for the folks living in the 9th circuit.
Bunyon,
This topic is obnoxious. Some people have no desire to protect the children. I must assume that they do not consider their encouragement of this behavior as un-Christlike. However, I am unable to justify this behavior under the laws of this country or under God's law.
This topic is obnoxious. Some people have no desire to protect the children. I must assume that they do not consider their encouragement of this behavior as un-Christlike. However, I am unable to justify this behavior under the laws of this country or under God's law.