Warning, somewhat graphic:


Parents in Deerfield, Ill. are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion.

Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed.

"Who would have ever thought that we would be handing out pornography in public schools (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080310a.html)?" asked Lora Sue Hauser, executive director of North Shore Student Advocacy, and a Deerfield parent.

"The fact that this was required is even more astonishing," she told Cybercast News Service.

Hauser cites numerous examples of offensive passages from the text, including the following:


Man: What do you want?
Louis: I want you to f*** me, hurt me, make me bleed.
Man: I want to.
Louis: Yeah?
Man: I want to hurt you.
Louis: F*** me.
Man: Yeah.
Louis: Hard?
Man: Yeah. You been a bad boy?

(They begin to f***.)

(Louis slips his hand down the front of Joe's pants. They embrace more tightly. Louis pulls his hand out, smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell ... they kiss again.)

Hauser said her group formally challenged the use of the books in school, and a school district committee reviewed their challenge.

"It was quite a lengthy process," Hauser told Cybercast News Service. "They spent five or six weeks deciding whether this book should be removed. Their final answer was it would be taken off the required reading list and put on an 'optional title' list.

Peter LaBarbera, with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, a conservative group, said the two books are simply parts 1 and 2 of a 10-year-old play on the topic of AIDS - one that has been heralded as "one of the great American plays of the 20th century."

In fact, playwright Tony Kushner won the Pulitzer Prize, and "Angels in America" won two Tony Awards. An HBO adaptation for television was nominated for an Emmy.

"It is defended as a literary work that shows forgiveness, kindness and compassion," LaBarbera said. "Of course, the first question that comes to my mind is, how many classical works of literature are there that show these virtues without delving into graphic homosexual sodomy?"

Parents like Hauser said the work, which even mocks the Catholic nun Mother Teresa, is porn - not literature - and offers bad messages:


Man: I think it broke. The rubber. You want me to keep going? (Little pause) Pull out? Should I --
Louis: Keep going. Infect me. I don't care. I don't care.

"There's no other way to describe this," Hauser said. "It is so egregious and so vulgar. I've been doing advocacy in schools a long time - and this is the worst thing I've seen."

Should this be incorporated in the comprehensive sex education curriculum of our public schools? Word is students can still get credit for this optional literary masterpiece. Can someone tell me what redeeming value there is in racist, anti-Christian gay porn - not to mention assigning it as required reading to 14 year olds?

Grow up, Tex, grow up.

Grow up, Tex, grow up.

Does that mean you think there is some redeeming value in assigning racist gay porn to 14 year olds?

Deerfield is the kind of Chicago suburb that would *dazzle* a guy like you. Why not read about it on Wikipedia.

The book is for *advanced* English courses... *smart kids*(not clod kickers)... can read literature without thinking they have to go out and put their hands into a man's pants or insult Mother Theresa. Lol

Dude, grow up. :)

Deerfield is the kind of Chicago suburb that would *dazzle* a guy like you. Why not read about it on Wikipedia.

The book is for *advanced* English courses....*smart kids*(not clod kickers)...... can read literature without thinking they have to go out and put their hands into a man's pants or insult Mother Theresa. lol

Dude, grow up. :)

Smart people can write more intelligent dialogue than found in this book such as "move your n****r a** out of my room. ….. move your n*****r c**t sp*** f****t lackey a** out of my room" and "S**t-for-brains filthy-mouthed selfish motherf***ing cowardly c**k-s**king cloven hoofed pig."

Or, "Dude, grow up."

Just the reason we home school

I'd be homeschooling too if my daughter had to read that crap.

No more than they'll hear or read in the playground at some point in time.

No more than they'll hear or read in the playground at some point in time.

So let's force feed it to them and legitimize it? The question is "Can someone tell me what redeeming value there is in racist, anti-Christian gay porn - not to mention assigning it as required reading to 14 year olds?"

I haven't read the books, but if the majority of the content in them is what appears in the article, I'd be opposed to teens reading it too. Not because of the subject matter, but because vulgarity in that nature holds little to no literary value. Now, if what is posted in the article is maybe five pages of a 200 page book and the rest of the book actually contains valid themes and contributes to critical thinking and literary substance, then that's a different story. For example, the book Native Son contains a part about two teens masturbating themselves in a movie theatre and "releasing" on the floor. The book talks about the stickiness of the floor, the motions they make, etc. Vulgar, right? It's about two pages out of 250 in an otherwise compelling, incredible book. I would not oppose an advanced high school class reading that book, not at all.

I guess what I'm saying is it all depends on context. If the vulgar parts of the book set up or the remainder of the story and a "lesson learned" (like the guy gets infected and dies) it has more merit than vulgarity for the sake of vulgarity.

Teens in advanced classes should be able to handle erotic parts of books and more adult subject matter, but if there's no literary value to the work, it doesn't belong in a literature class.

It is advocating homosexual sex and anti christian values, so it is considered politically correct today, heck in some nations you may not even legally be able to object to it.

Seems fine to me. At my school we read books about rape and sexual violence which is much worse. I haven't read the book/play just the summary on wikipedia but it does deal with some heavy (and pretty depressing subjects) however so do many other literary books.

I have friends who were acting out those type of scenes real life at that. It is very important educational lesson to gay teenagers to realise their cultural heritage (AIDs/oppression ect) and for all teenagers the dangers of promiscuous, unprotected sex. It doesn’t look like a ‘everyone had a good type having sex with everybody else and they all live happily ever after story.’

It looks like the language is a bit rich, if I was to protest on it would be about that, but as a previous poster said it isn't much worse than what they would hear on the playground.

The more I read this stuff about what goes on in the U.S. the more I'm happy I don't live there. It's apparent you aren't happy either - thread after thread about nasty goings on...

At least here in the States, IMO, if you can't afford private schools or have your child qualified to attend a public magnet school, home schooling is best.

You people keep on saying 14 year olds but high school is also up to 18 y/o's. And we watched Romeo and Juliet in English in 9th grade and they are naked and you see Juliets breast full fledge for about a second but the sides for a couple min. Get over it, seriously, if it was never showed I could imagine a 20 y/o or someone giggling at the sound of gay.

I'm not sure this is being read by 14-year olds. The only reference to 14-year olds in the article is:

The district ordered 14-year-old freshmen to take a seminar that amounted to homosexual indoctrination, she said, and had them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

I don't see where the article says which students are reading this material.

I also fund it amusing there is an uproar about it being "anti-Christian" but you never hear of an uproar over something being "anti-atheist" or "anti-most-other-religions". I guess you take a dig at Mother Theresa and you go to hell. Do not pass "Go", do not collect $200...

So let's force feed it to them and legitimize it? The question is "Can someone tell me what redeeming value there is in racist, anti-Christian gay porn - not to mention assigning it as required reading to 14 year olds?"

I cant! But I think jillean and some other poster raise some good points!

Well, the language might be a bit much--but really, I like the idea of something contemporary like that better than "My Antonia", which, really, was crap for literature.

I remember being shocked by "The Jungle", which is considered great lit, in 8th grade. The sexual coersion, the shocking conditions--but that was okay, because it gave an important peek at a part of American history/culture. Same thing with "Catcher in the Rye" with it's pretty sexual themes and (really) pretty coarse language. And what about "Brave New World", which practically preaches casual sex? And what about the "Canterbury Tales", which has LONG been very edited from its original coarse content? And perhaps "Beowulf" should be completely removed too? And dear lord--"1984" and "The Lord of the Flies". And what about Steinbeck? For all of his religious themes and symbiology in his books--I wouldn't say his stories PROMOTE good old-fashioned Christian values, either.

If you don't want your kid reading it, GREAT! That doesn't mean it doesn't have cultural or social value. And it IS recommended reading, not required, at this point.

As far as promoting gays and anti-christian values---the only books I remember reading in school that blatantly stand out in my mind about Christian values were "The Scarlet Letter", "The Crucible", and, as recommended reading, the CS Lewis "Narnia" books. I read the "Little House" books as a child, for fun, and Madeleine L'Engle's "Wrinkle in Time" books. The first two don't exactly promote the same KIND of Christian values you'd like, hmm? And the others are just a little... childish, don't you think? Especially for high school seniors.

I'd like to see a list of possible "Christian Values" books at the reading level of high school seniors that does NOT include the Bible. Seriously. I can't think of ANYTHING I had to read that wasn't socially relevant, at least on some level, or historically relevant.

Again--if you don't want YOUR kid to read it--fine. But isn't it rather ridiculous to be fighting about a book that isn't even required in a class, at least not anymore?

Well what they need to do is inform the parents in advance that the kids will be reading this type of smut in school. Then see if the parents raise an issue with it. No doubt the parents had to find out about this second hand. Obviously if the teachers did not think the content was objectionable they would not have told the students to lie to their parents about it.

I'm not sure this is being read by 14-year olds. The only reference to 14-year olds in the article is:

The district ordered 14-year-old freshmen to take a seminar that amounted to homosexual indoctrination, she said, and had them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

I don't see where the article says which students are reading this material.

I also fund it amusing there is an uproar about it being "anti-Christian" but you never hear of an uproar over something being "anti-atheist" or "anti-most-other-religions". I guess you take a dig at Mother Theresa and you go to hell. Do not pass "Go", do not collect $200...

Hey Jillian, I'm glad you agree vulgarity for the sake for vulgarity has no literary value (your previous post). That article may not say explicitly 14 year olds were reading the book but others I've read have. Still, I see no place for this type of thing in public school period. If anyone still wonders about it's literary value, North Shore Student Advocacy has posted more excerpts.

WARNING, very graphic language!

EXCERPTS FROM: ANGELS IN AMERICA: A GAY FANTASIA ON NATIONAL THEMES (http://www.illinoisfamily.org/content/img/f33785/Excerpts_from_Angels_in_America.pdf) (pdf)

You make a good point about "anti-atheist" or "anti-most-other-religions," but give us some examples. It certainly isn't PC to speak ill of radical Islam, Jews or Mormons (unless it's about Mitt Romney and coming from the media - I've posted several examples on these boards), but blatantly offensive speech about Christians, Jesus or God in general is fine. In fact, a number of people find fame and fortune (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10357) while doing just that.

You people keep on saying 14 year olds but high school is also up to 18 y/o's. And we watched Romeo and Juliet in English in 9th grade and they are naked and you see Juliets breast full fledge for about a second but the sides for a couple min. Get over it, seriously, if it was never showed i could imagine a 20 y/o or someone giggling at the sound of gay.

Get over it? Seriously? Sorry, I refuse to just "get over" force feeding - or even offering as an option - vulgar, racist gay porn to public high school students. How can anyone even consider mentioning Shakespeare in comparison to "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes?" Seriously?

Again--if you don't want YOUR kid to read it--fine. But isn't it rather ridiculous to be fighting about a book that isn't even required in a class, at least not anymore?

Not ridiculous at all in my opinion. Read the excerpts at the link I posted to Jillian.

My question remains unanswered, "Can someone tell me what redeeming value there is in racist, anti-Christian gay porn - not to mention assigning it as required reading to 14 year olds?"

Hey Jillian, I'm glad you agree vulgarity for the sake for vulgarity has no literary value (your previous post). That article may not say explicitly 14 year olds were reading the book but others I've read have. Still, I see no place for this type of thing in public school period. If anyone still wonders about it's literary value, North Shore Student Advocacy has posted more excerpts.

WARNING, very graphic language!

EXCERPTS FROM: ANGELS IN AMERICA: A GAY FANTASIA ON NATIONAL THEMES (http://www.illinoisfamily.org/content/img/f33785/Excerpts_from_Angels_in_America.pdf) (pdf)

The content of the play is very adult, but after reading the summary on wiki, I think the overall themes are worthy. Language in and of itsself doesn't disqualify something from having value. The link you provided is graphic, the language is harsh, but I disagree that this is a work of pornograpghy. Rather, I think it has a lot of elements of realism, which is what contemporary literature is striving to achieve. That being said, could the schools find work less controversial which contains similar themes? Probably. But I think even this work, if presented to the right age group in the right way could hold literary and educational value. It pushes the envelope, but anything involving homosexuality does. Have you read the summary in wiki? Do you oppose the theme of the book, or the way the content is presented? I'm honestly asking; I'd like to know precisley what the opposition is to (your opposition, rather). Personally I'm not offended by the language, and, as I said, I think there are students who can "handle" such a thing, but I'm certainly not offended by the theme of the play. Since I haven't read the play I'm not totally comfortable saying that this is a literary masterpiece or that it is acceptable in a school environment, but given the summary I read, the awards received, I'm saying it is possible this is acceptable.

That all being said I wonder why the school selected such a controversial piece. Is there a large population of gays in the area they are hoping to reach? Is there another school program about AIDS awareness? Or was it selected by a group of administrators who wanted to make it into the paper? Where and how does this piece go along with the rest of the lesson plan? Now that it's an optional read it doesn't have to tie in to the lesson plan as tightly, but at a time it was required... I wonder why. From a personal standpoint it always frustrates me when schools require contemporary literature instead of classic - kids aren't as likely to pick up a classic later on or on their own as they are a contemporary work. But that's just the lit-lover in me coming out! :)


You make a good point about "anti-atheist" or "anti-most-other-religions," but give us some examples. It certainly isn't PC to speak ill of radical Islam, Jews or Mormons (unless it's about Mitt Romney and coming from the media - I've posted several examples on these boards), but blatantly offensive speech about Christians, Jesus or God in general is fine. In fact, a number of people find fame and fortune (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10357) while doing just that.

When I think "anti-atheist" I think more of heavily-religious themed pieces. In those instances it depends a lot of how the work is presented. My point is no one throws a fit when god or Christianity is mentioned in a positive light, but if you insult Mother Theresa you make the news. When I was in elementary school we read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which, as we all know, has religious overtones. There was no opposition to it, and there was even a mural in the cafeteria depicting a scene from the book. I guess I just don't understand why Christianity always must be presented in a positive light. It's one thing to have kids read works which bash the religion outright (no reason to assign Dawson in school!), it's another to have a piece which challenges certain aspects of the religion, especially when done through a character who is struggling with his faith. For example, in the link you provided, "I don't believe in God" is highlighted as "offensive". I know it precedes a line with f**k in it, but why include the line about god? What is so offensive about saying that? The line about Mother Theresa is also inconsequential; it's from a character's point of view, and besides, Mother Theresa isn't regarded by everyone as an "angel".

If the opposition to this work was just about the language; the curse words, the vulgarity, that would be one thing. But it's not just about that - it's opposed because it's about gay people who aren't god-fearing Christians.

Yeah that is what I have been saying but everybody tells me it doesn't happen in our schools.
They banned Tom Sawyer but a gay guy telling another gay guy that it isn't hard enough he wants to bleed I see no value of it.
They say that many Californian's are leaving the state because these are the type of things kids have to read and they are not allowed to home school.
I am worried they are going to ban home schooling in every state.
They made the book optional reading but I wonder if the other options are much better.

The content of the play is very adult, but after reading the summary on wiki, I think the overall themes are worthy. Language in and of itsself doesn't disqualify something from having value. The link you provided is graphic, the language is harsh, but I disagree that this is a work of pornograpghy. Rather, I think it has a lot of elements of realism, which is what contemporary literature is striving to achieve. That being said, could the schools find work less controversial which contains similar themes? Probably. But I think even this work, if presented to the right age group in the right way could hold literary and educational value. It pushes the envelope, but anything involving homosexuality does. Have you read the summary in wiki? Do you oppose the theme of the book, or the way the content is presented? I'm honestly asking; I'd like to know precisley what the opposition is to (your opposition, rather). Personally I'm not offended by the language, and, as I said, I think there are students who can "handle" such a thing, but I'm certainly not offended by the theme of the play. Since I haven't read the play I'm not totally comfortable saying that this is a literary masterpiece or that it is acceptable in a school environment, but given the summary I read, the awards received, I'm saying it is possible this is acceptable.

Jillean, I respect you so I'm not saying this about you, but I think sometimes - just for the mere fact someone is a conservative Christian - some people form the opinion we're against everything, know nothing, are sanctimonious, intolerant bigots and have no real life experience from which to form an objective opinion about things. So before I go any further let me remind you I have a bi-sexual daughter I love with all my heart that suffers from AIDS. There ain't much left to shock me. ;)

There are better ways to present a story, to make a point, to stimulate the mind - especially to impressionable youth. It's bad enough to me that we celebrate such vulgar, graphic, offensive material with awards, it's inexcusable in my opinion to serve it to our children. If people want us to understand and perhaps sympathize with the plight of these characters is there not a more sensitive/intelligent/poetic/eloquent way to do so? Why should we accept such lowered standards? Is that what we want our children to grow up to be like, do want them aspire to such "greatness?" What is the value in 'educating' our children this way? Why do we have to continue to "push the envelope," to see how low and depraved we as a society can become? I just don't get it Jillian, I want better than that for our children. I'd like them to have a vocabulary beyond profanity, "dude" and "no problem." I don't want them to have school sanctioned images in their head of a guy who sticks his hand down Joe's pants, "smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell." Would you sit and watch it with your kids? I wouldn't, and I'd bet most Deerfield High School officials wouldn't either.


That all being said I wonder why the school selected such a controversial piece.

I don't know, but apparently they do have an agenda that doesn't involve parents (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683).


I guess I just don't understand why Christianity always must be presented in a positive light. It's one thing to have kids read works which bash the religion outright (no reason to assign Dawson in school!), it's another to have a piece which challenges certain aspects of the religion, especially when done through a character who is struggling with his faith.

Well Jillian, I honestly don't know who expects or even advocates that "Christianity always must be presented in a positive light." It isn't about that at all, it's the selective outrage, the hypocrisy of those who mock and condemn a Christian for daring to state his beliefs while shielding their favorite protected class from criticism for their beliefs. That Christians should not be offended at assaults on their faith and values. It's about the fact that courts and school districts have banned most if not all things Christian while schools are doing their best to indoctrinate children with their own ideologies and undermining parental rights. It's about pushing us out of the discussion while telling us we need to have an open mind and understanding toward others.


For example, in the link you provided, "I don't believe in God" is highlighted as "offensive". I know it precedes a line with f**k in it, but why include the line about god? What is so offensive about saying that? The line about Mother Theresa is also inconsequential; it's from a character's point of view, and besides, Mother Theresa isn't regarded by everyone as an "angel".

We just had a long conversation in this country about the "n" word, the NAACP even held a mock funeral for it. Its use in this work has been mentioned several times now and who has objected? Imagine how offended blacks were at "Kramer's" racist rant, the outrage over Isaiah Washington's gay slur against Patrick Dempsey or Ann Coulter's use of the word 'faggot' last year. That line cuts at least as deeply to a Christian as any of those 'approved' outrages.


If the opposition to this work was just about the language; the curse words, the vulgarity, that would be one thing. But it's not just about that - it's opposed because it's about gay people who aren't god-fearing Christians.

Jillean, come on - give us a little more credit than that :)

That line cuts at least as deeply to a Christian as any of those 'approved' outrages. But those who don't believe in god aren't outraged when you say you believe in god. Why the double-standard?

If the opposition to this work was just about the language; the curse words, the vulgarity, that would be one thing. But it's not just about that - it's opposed because it's about gay people who aren't god-fearing Christians.

NO it is opposed because of the whole content in general
Add to the fact that it is what is being taught to many impressionable kids.
What exactly is it they want to accomplish by having kids read this?

How are you guys going to fix your educational system? I don't think I've ever read anything positive about it here.

Do the Canadian teacher unions undermine education like they do here ?

How are you guys going to fix your educational system? I don't think I've ever read anything positive about it here.

Right now home school, cyber school or private school seems the only answer.
The schools are more interested in socializing kids than teaching them.
kids that learn an alternative way from the public school system have proven to be better
with social skills and education.
a 1997 study showed that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools.
home school parents say they are dissatisfied with the public school system
many include religion and/or family values

do the Canadian teacher unions undermine education like they do here ?Apparently not. At least not where I live nor where my friends live across Canada.

Right now home school, cyber school or private school seems the only answer.
The schools are more interested in socializing kids than teaching them.
kids that learn an alternative way from the public school system have proven to be better
with social skills and education.
a 1997 study showed that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools.
home school parents say they are dissatisfied with the public school system
many include religion and/or family valuesI went to both private and public schools and never saw the kind of stuff that is described on this site so I guess we're lucky. Homeschooling can work if a) a parent afford to stay at home and b) the parent has teaching skills. Some parents I see could not and should not be the only example of intellectual pursuit for their own children. That leaves the fact that a school system still needs to exist.

To me 'family values' are taught by the family not by the school anyway so that's a moot point.

To me 'family values' are taught by the family not by the school anyway so that's a moot point.

family values are to be taught by the family but when you have the schools having kids sign forms saying they will not tell the parents what they are teaching and the school undermines what the parents teach it can be a losing battle.
School was nothing like this back when I went either.

Jillean, I respect you so I'm not saying this about you, but I think sometimes - just for the mere fact someone is a conservative Christian - some people form the opinion we're against everything, know nothing, are sanctimonious, intolerant bigots and have no real life experience from which to form an objective opinion about things. So before I go any further let me remind you I have a bi-sexual daughter I love with all my heart that suffers from AIDS. There ain't much left to shock me. ;)

But surely you admit there are conservative Christians who fit that mold? Certainly there is a stereotype about Christians, just as there are stereotypes about other groups, and unfortunately, in these instances one must usually speak in generalizations. I'm sure there are Christian parents in that school district who don't oppose the work, but we speak in general terms about the ones who do. Maybe some object to the language, but to generalize (and to hear it from the advocasy group in the article) it's an objection to everything about the work, not one particular thing. I'm not trying to imply you are one of those in that mold, but when we start talking about people en masse... well, that's when people start to lose rationality and get all stupid! :)


There are better ways to present a story, to make a point, to stimulate the mind - especially to impressionable youth. It's bad enough to me that we celebrate such vulgar, graphic, offensive material with awards, it's inexcusable in my opinion to serve it to our children. If people want us to understand and perhaps sympathize with the plight of these characters is there not a more sensitive/intelligent/poetic/eloquent way to do so? Why should we accept such lowered standards? Is that what we want our children to grow up to be like, do want them aspire to such "greatness?" What is the value in 'educating' our children this way? Why do we have to continue to "push the envelope," to see how low and depraved we as a society can become? I just don't get it Jillian, I want better than that for our children. I'd like them to have a vocabulary beyond profanity, "dude" and "no problem." I don't want them to have school sanctioned images in their head of a guy who sticks his hand down Joe's pants, "smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell." Would you sit and watch it with your kids? I wouldn't, and I'd bet most Deerfield High School officials wouldn't either.

I agree, in general there are better ways to get a point across and to stimulate the mind. But, again, I think context must be accounted for. The writer's intent, the characters and so on. Again, I haven't read the play, I can't say for sure if it is relavent, but as a literature lover and a writer I can see how it might be. Do you really think this play has been given awards and is acclaimed simply because it's "edgy" or "out of the box"? Or do you think that looking at the subject matter and the plot that it might be a worthwhile piece? Generally speaking I don't like vulgarity in my books, I tend to be of the opinion the author should be able to find a better word, but, if that is what the character, the scene and the plot call for, I understand and accept it. If I'm reading a book about inner city gang members I don't expect them to say, "You're a stupid doo doo head!". It's not real, it throws you out of the story. If the language and the situations in this play contribute to the plot, then to me, it's acceptable.

So to me, if the work is otherwise of literary value, the language used is secondary. It teaches our children how to convey realism and emotion. How to create a character you can see and hear (and in this case smell and touch! Heehee, sorry!). That's very, very hard to do as a writer, and it takes a lot of talent. Your characters have to be believable, which is why my gang member language example above doesn't work.

So maybe the author could have made these characters less brash, better educated, less gritty and still gotten the same message across. But if that wasn't the story the author wanted to write, then why should he/she have to write it that way? If this story, in this form is the completion of the author's vision, I appreciate and respect that. Should Michelangeo's David have to have been clothed? Would it be the same piece if it were? IF the elements in this play are done well, I understand it's use in a literature class. Literature and reading isn't always about expanding one's vocabulary, it's also about critical thinking, symbolism, interpretation, empathy, and imagination. It's about putting yourself in another time and place through a realistic character. That is how this piece might hold literary value. It goes somewhere other works have not, or at least does it better than other works.


I don't know, but apparently they do have an agenda that doesn't involve parents (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683).

It seems this school has issues... At first I wondered about students and the confidentiality agreement (let's face it, people twist things to suit their agenda), but it appears the school acknowledges they in fact, did it. I'm for kids, parents and schools working together, so to me, this is unacceptable. To any involved parent this should be unacceptable.


Well Jillian, I honestly don't know who expects or even advocates that "Christianity always must be presented in a positive light." It isn't about that at all, it's the selective outrage, the hypocrisy of those who mock and condemn a Christian for daring to state his beliefs while shielding their favorite protected class from criticism for their beliefs. That Christians should not be offended at assaults on their faith and values. It's about the fact that courts and school districts have banned most if not all things Christian while schools are doing their best to indoctrinate children with their own ideologies and undermining parental rights. It's about pushing us out of the discussion while telling us we need to have an open mind and understanding toward others.

I think most people expect Christianity should be presented in a positive light. Why else the outrage of a character saying "I don't believe in god"? It's an opinion, a personal belief, and it's no different than a character in another book saying "I'm a Jew" or "I'm a Buddhist". As much as you say a Christian can't stand up for his/her beliefs, it's the same from the other end. Here, in this work, you have outrage over someone insulting Mother Theresa and saying they are an atheist. How is that an assult on your faith or values? Is it an assult to profess ones belief? Do non-Christians get outraged when in a required reading book a character says, "I'm a Christian"? Not that I've heard. Banning things that are Christian, the only things I can think of off the top of my head are teaching the bible, prayer in school, and creationism in a science class. Where is any other group allowed those luxuries? We don't teach the Qu'ran, we don't allow any organized prayer, and we don't teach any other religious groups idea of creation either. Maybe you'd care to be more specific, but in general, Christians are not the group in this country who are oppressed and mis-treated. Isolated examples of Christian suppression in a school hardly account for the majority of situations in which schools endorse no particular religion, which, in a public school, is the way things should be.

Homosexuality content can be seen as an assault on Christian values, I'll give you that one. But calling this piece "homosexual porn" is taking things a little too far. It's looking at one aspect of a work and condemning the entire thing. It's ignoring the possibility that there is a beneficial message and literary merit because it's a book about gays. And I'm not saying Christians shouldn't stand up for what they believe in, I'm just saying they shouldn't expect to always get their way. There are other people in this world, and there are things our children can learn and take meaning from which oppose Christian viewpoints. Exposing our kids to other religions and other ways of life isn't necessarily going to harm them for life or turn them against Christianity.


We just had a long conversation in this country about the "n" word, the NAACP even held a mock funeral for it. Its use in this work has been mentioned several times now and who has objected? Imagine how offended blacks were at "Kramer's" racist rant, the outrage over Isaiah Washington's gay slur against Patrick Dempsey or Ann Coulter's use of the word 'faggot' last year. That line cuts at least as deeply to a Christian as any of those 'approved' outrages.

You forgot Mel Gibson, or did you intentionally leave him out because he's a Christian and what he says is OK? Kidding, kidding, kidding! :D

I'm assuming the line that cuts deeply you are referring to is the Mother Theresa line, not the "I don't believe in God" line. If not, please see above about saying "I'm a Jew". Anyway, I think the examples you provide are different than the language used in this play. For one, the character is a character, not an actual person who is followed by or looked up to by individuals. Secondly, (I'm assuming) the line is aligned with something the character would say because of his/her views expressed earlier in the work. I think a lot of the outrage from the people you referenced comes from the fact that there had been no previous indication the individual felt that way, or should feel that way. There was the element of shock on top of everything else. But, take the kooks (yeah, I said it!) at Westboro Baptist Church, they go on anti-homosexual tyrades all the time and get almost no news coverage. Why? Because they aren't a public figure; neither is the character in this piece.

There's nothing wrong with Christsians not liking that the character said this, or thinking the character is wrong, but to use that line as ammo as to why one should oppose the work? Certainly it's their right, but it is my opinion that's taking things a little far. We aren't talking about a monologue of why Mother Theresa is the spawn of Satan, we're talking about one line. In a play. Said by a character.

But to be honest, the language used in this play is what gets me about it being allowed. Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer are banned in many schools because of the use of the n-word, but a school allows this? I don't see the logic in that.



Jillean, come on - give us a little more credit than that :)

NEVER!!!!!! :)

Seriously though, as I said earlier, I think there are some who oppose the piece because it's about gays and some who oppose the piece because of the language and they feel it's inappropriate for that age group. When people spout off about this being "homosexual porn" I'm more inclined to think the opposition has to do with the "homosexual" part because it indicates they haven't learned what the work is about, what the plot is, who the characters are, and so on. Being opposed to it because you feel it is adult subject matter (sexual, not homosexual) not appropriate for students and the language is unacceptable for a school environment is different. I would think that group might be able to recognize the piece could contain literary value, just inappropriate literary value for high school teenagers. I guess the test of that is, would there be opposition if this was required reading in a college lit course?

I read some of the answers... not all, so forgive me if I say something that you have already said. My girl is 11, she and her five friends had a sleep over here at the house and I had a suspicion of what they all knew, but never heard it all until then. She knew songs, phrases, things that are disgusting that they heard from other girls, knew them by heart... for some reason I found myself a little uncomfortable telling them that this was not acceptable, like me as a "COOL" mother should have thought it was cute and funny. At first I was astonished, but then I though, hmmmm, I can go about this one way, or the other. I picked the other and we all kind of started to talk about this and that and what it really meant. (I felt weird because these are not my children just one of them were, I didn't want to step on other parents toes) I added after our VERY grown up talk that this is just my opinion and that if we go about things with a little more maturity, we can talk all of this through and actually understand why some of the stuff they know is just not suitable for their ages. I also stated that they should talk to their parents about their worries and the questions they have, it is very important to get the "right" info. It was a great night, we all had fun and they seemed to like having someone they could be VERY vocal with, so if I had my say, Explain Explain Explain to your children that yes, this stuff is out there, but to better understand it, you need to be open and talk about it. If you aren't ready for that then you shouldn't be viewing it! I would rather my kid, any one of them to ask me the sickest question in the world before they go off believing everything they see... :)

If the opposition to this work was just about the language; the curse words, the vulgarity, that would be one thing. But it's not just about that - it's opposed because it's about gay people who aren't god-fearing Christians.

NO it is opposed because of the whole content in general
add to the fact that it is what is being taught to many impressionable kids.
What exactly is it they want to accomplish by having kids read this?

You can see my response to this in my post above to speech, I was posting when you said this, but my comments remain the same.

But what about the content to you specifically object to? Why do you not want your child to read this? And I'm sorry, but the "impressionable kids" line is very difficult for me to buy into - are you saying you think kids are going to read this and all turn gay and have reckless homosexual relations?

I hear many kids saying they are not gay they just like experimenting
They are so confused about any distinctions.
The things I hear young people saying about sexual things is so unreal
And it has to be based on what they learned from this type of stuff.
I don't even care to repeat the things I have heard.
I would have to use way more @$#%&* than I could use letters to type it all out here anyway.

How are you guys going to fix your educational system? I don't think I've ever read anything positive about it here.

I know this is getting a bit off topic, but I think the key is to remain involved. Don't just send your kid to school and expect that they will learn anything and everything they are supposed to, or that the school will teach the values and morals YOU want them to have. Know what they are studying, talk to them, stay involved. If the school teaches something you oppose, talk to your kid about why you oppose it, and what YOU think the proper value or moral is.

But remember too, "If it bleeds, it leads"... no one reports on anything good in the educational system; it's not juicy enough, no one cares.

I know this is getting a bit off topic, but I think the key is to remain involved. Don't just send your kid to school and expect that they will learn anything and everything they are supposed to, or that the school will teach the values and morals YOU want them to have. Know what they are studying, talk to them, stay involved. If the school teaches something you oppose, talk to your kid about why you oppose it, and what YOU think the proper value or moral is.

But remember too, "If it bleeds, it leads".... no one reports on anything good in the educational system; it's not juicy enough, no one cares.

Perfectly said, and that was my point exactly. ;)

I hear many kids saying they are not gay they just like experimenting
They are so confused about any distinctions.
The things I hear young people saying about sexual things is so unreal
and it has to be based on what they learned from this type of stuff.
I don't even care to repeat the things I have heard.
I would have to use way more @$#%&* than I could use letters to type it all out here anyway.

Kids have been experimenting long before homosexuality was "accepted" as it is now. I disagree that this is where they learn that stuff - they learn that stuff from other teens, from television, from movies, from being unsupervised and having uninvolved parents.

jillianleab,

http://www.boratoncampus.com/thumbs-up.jpg

I think there is a difference between experimenting the usual stuff and
Experimenting with what a book like this teaches.
Also this gives them the impression that anything goes.
To me it they might as well be teaching why don't you go out in the street and do it the way dogs do it.
Look at what NAMBLA promotes---basically the same as what I hear these kids saying.

I think there is a difference between experimenting the usual stuff and
experimenting with what a book like this teaches.
Also this gives them the impression that anything goes.
To me it they might as well be teaching why don't you go out in the street and do it the way dogs do it.
Look at what NAMBLA promotes---basically the same as what I hear these kids saying.

You hear teens talking about wanting to have sex with pre-pubescent boys? Glad I don't live in your town.

And sorry, but what do you mean "experimenting the usual stuff and experimenting with what a book like this teaches"? By "the usual stuff" do you mean hetero experimenting? Because when I said kids have been experimenting forever I meant hetero and homosexual ways. I'm not sure what you mean by "anything goes" either. It's sex - anything does go (when it's consensual), but if one of the lessons in this play is about HIV/AIDS infection because of unprotected sex, that teaches them that anything doesn't go. I'm also not sure how you draw the conclusion that this piece is equated with going out in the street and doing it like dogs...

But you didn't answer my question about what you specifically oppose about the play. The homosexual acts? The language? The age group it's being taught to? All of it?

I mean from what was typical in the 50's and 60's to what NAMBLA teaches.
LOOK up what NAMBLA teaches and that is what our society is heading for.
And what I mean by teens talking about wanting to have sex with pre-pubescent boys
I mean 20 year olds and older with teens and pre-pubescent and I am not talking where
I live. I hear it from many states.

But those who don't believe in god aren't outraged when you say you believe in god. Why the double-standard?

NK, I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion based on what I've said. There is no double standard on my part and I'm not outraged when people say they don't believe in God, so what's your point? All I'm asking for in this regard is the same respect for my beliefs, values and sensitivities that's demanded of me. I think that sounds reasonable.

I hear more people outraged AT people who talk about God and religion.
They start screaming about their rights being violated and so forth because they hear you saying your beliefs
Like it is going to kill them to hear something they are so against

I mean from what was typical in the 50's and 60's to what NAMBLA teaches.
LOOK up what NAMBLA teaches and that is what our society is heading for.
And what I mean by teens talking about wanting to have sex with pre-pubescent boys
I mean 20 year olds and older with teens and pre-pubescent and I am not talking where
I live. I hear it from many states.

NAMBLA wants to legalize sex between adult men and underage boys; I have seen zero evidence of anyone but NAMBLA supporting this point of view. Yet you think this is what our society is headed for? Why, because what they say is protected by free speech? I'm not sure what your point is here, or why you think NAMBLA is a prime example.

Yet you think this is what our society is headed for? Why,She thinks the world is going to end in about 12 years.

She thinks the world is going to end in about 12 years.

NK, you have a way of making everything make sense... :D

Creeping incrementalism
Hidden agenda

They DO NOT want you to see where it is leading to.
That is the way things go in our society.
They are not going to say well today we are going to teach kids how to put condoms on a
Pickle in the 5th grade, by 2008 we are going to try to get that book accepted
But by 2030 something like man boy relationships people will say just what you are now saying -that it is nothing to be concerned about.
What would have shocked many people in the 50's and 60's is now acceptable
What will be acceptable by 2030 will be stuff beyond what you now say I draw the line at.

I don't think the world is going to end in 12 years
I think it is going to be worse than we can imagine in 15 to 25 years.

Creeping incrementalism
Hidden agenda

They DO NOT want you to see where it is leading to.
That is the way things go in our society.
They are not going to say well today we are going to teach kids how to put condoms on a
pickle in the 5th grade, by 2008 we are going to try to get that book accepted
but by 2030 something like man boy relationships people will say just what you are now saying -that it is nothing to be concerned about.
What would have shocked many people in the 50's and 60's is now acceptable
What will be acceptable by 2030 will be stuff beyond what you now say I draw the line at.
I have to agree with ths statement. I never ever thought this world would be like it is today. I still go back to teaching our kids the right way to live. If we all make it a point to be involved this world would be a better place to live. So if you know a kid and know they are involved or even thinking about these things then talk with them, let them know their thoughts and feelings are VALID. Even adults like me need to hear that every once in a while just so I know I am not a crazy woman. Parents have a big job ahead of them... and so do the kids. The mind needs to stay open but clear, and that is the problem here. This would be taking it way off subject, but when I read a scary book or a thriller with ideas in it, I know it's a book, in that book, those kids know it's a skit... RIGHT? I wouldn't come up with a master plan to murder someone from a book and any kid that has been informed enough isn't going to just go out and do what is in that either... at least I hope not. The message is not to get aids, not to go out and get screwed...

Creeping incrementalism
Hidden agenda

They DO NOT want you to see where it is leading to.
That is the way things go in our society.
They are not going to say well today we are going to teach kids how to put condoms on a
pickle in the 5th grade, by 2008 we are going to try to get that book accepted
but by 2030 something like man boy relationships people will say just what you are now saying -that it is nothing to be concerned about.
What would have shocked many people in the 50's and 60's is now acceptable
What will be acceptable by 2030 will be stuff beyond what you now say I draw the line at.

So you're shocked and appalled that as time goes on people's ideals and morals change? That what society considers acceptable changes? Yes, let's go back to the 1950's, and have segregation and no Civil Rights Act. You do know that NAMBLA is largely dismantled now, right? They no longer have regular meetings, they have no main office, and are rarely politically active anymore.

You seem to be heading a totally opposite direction that where you started, and this has gotten quite off topic. So unless you want to answer my question from several posts ago about what you specifically object to about this play being taught in schools, I think it's best we stop this line of discussion.

So NAMBLA is dismantled the members are still alive and well.
So NAMBLA won't promote these things.
Doesn't mean what they are/were into will not be what is acceptable in 20 -30 years from now.

What do I object to in that book?
Fine teach it and we will see where things are in 20-30 years from now.

I sure do not see any educational value to it.

Nohelp, this is one of those things that you will never be able to stop even if you wanted to, so we have to do our jobs as adults and make sure we inform the kids otherwise.

N0help4u, I never said the book should or should not be taught. The argument I'm making is that just because of the subject matter and the language doesn't mean it has no literary value. But you still avoided my question. That's OK, you don't have to answer it. It seems you might not really know why you oppose it, you just do.

But if you worry about the fate of the world in 20 or 30 years, perhaps you should focus your energies on making sure your own children and those in your own life have the values and morals you want them to. But change isn't always bad - in the 1950's it was socially unacceptable for a black man and white woman to be married, today it's OK and society hasn't collapsed yet. So maybe you think homosexual rights will collapse society, but people thought that in the 1950's about interracial couples too. And I'd say in general, children's rights have become more protected as time goes on, not less (child labor, child marriage, child abuse, etc), so I really doubt the NAMBLA message will gain any steam, no matter how much time passes.

Nohelp, this is one of those things that you will never be able to stop even if you wanted to, so we have to do our jobs as adults and make sure we inform the kids otherwise.

Agree greenie: I know

I just see so many kids totally confused about their own sexuality in so many ways
Because they are being taught all these different things.

I never said change is always bad,
but civil rights of blacks is an apples and oranges comparison.
I see no value in the book. I am sure there are much more educational books on the subject.

what does the book actually teach?

I see so many kids totally confused about their own sexuality in so many ways
because they are being taught all these different things and they have no direction for their own self.

I hear kids saying what is wrong with me I am 20 years old and never kissed.
What is wrong with me I can't get pregnant, I am 14.
20 year old boys saying they lay on the bed and SHOW 13 year old boys how to !@#% off because the 13 year old is afraid he is not doing it right.
I hear kids saying I have no idea if I am gay and I am worried I might be cause I don't want to be
I hear many many kids say they are not gay they just like doing it with the same sex but they are 100% straight

agree greenie: I know

I just see so many kids totally confused about their own sexuality in so many ways
because they are being taught all these different things.Nope, because their parents are that way.

Nope, because their parents are that way.

Often their parents have no idea.
Often their parents have no idea they even know about two men and anal.
Yes it is up to the parents but many parents assume too much and ignore and neglect other things.

But surely you admit there are conservative Christians who fit that mold? Certainly there is a stereotype about Christians, just as there are stereotypes about other groups, and unfortunately, in these instances one must usually speak in generalizations.

LOL, watch the sparks fly when I make such generalizations about blacks, illegal aliens or gays.


I'm not trying to imply you are one of those in that mold, but when we start talking about people en masse... well, that's when people start to lose rationality and get all stupid! :)

And that's why I emphasized I wasn't talking about you earlier ;)


If I'm reading a book about inner city gang members I don't expect them to say, "You're a stupid doo doo head!". It's not real, it throws you out of the story. If the language and the situations in this play contribute to the plot, then to me, it's acceptable.

And if adults choose such material what can I say? I can't believe anyone can justify that kind of content and subject matter for public school students. Our kids deserve better.


So maybe the author could have made these characters less brash, better educated, less gritty and still gotten the same message across. But if that wasn't the story the author wanted to write, then why should he/she have to write it that way?

Again, if adults want to spend their money on it who am I to say they can't?


It seems this school has issues... At first I wondered about students and the confidentiality agreement (let's face it, people twist things to suit their agenda), but it appears the school acknowledges they in fact, did it. I'm for kids, parents and schools working together, so to me, this is unacceptable. To any involved parent this should be unacceptable.

I appreciate you saying that my friend.


I think most people expect Christianity should be presented in a positive light. Why else the outrage of a character saying "I don't believe in god"?

Folks can say "I don't believe in God" all day long and it won't offend me, Jillian. That isn't the offending part of the excerpt:


I don’t believe in God. I think you should know that before we f*** again (Joe bites one of Louis’s nipples.) . . . .
Oh God, Oh God, I believe, I believe.
(Joe and Louis begin to f*** again.)

They used the "f" word twice in the line, then insult God and our very faith. To portray faith in God coming from the ecstasy of a gay sexual encounter is offensive to the nth degree. In this age of 'sensitivity' that's a legitimate outrage.


Here, in this work, you have outrage over someone insulting Mother Theresa and saying they are an atheist. How is that an assult on your faith or values? Is it an assult to profess ones belief? Do non-Christians get outraged when in a required reading book a character says, "I'm a Christian"? Not that I've heard.

It has nothing to do someone saying they're an atheist, or a Christian, or a lesbian or whatever, period. Why should we care about that? It's this line, "Suck my d***, Mother Teresa." Now, I'm not Catholic so it doesn't offend me as much as it does some, but she is a beloved saint in their eyes. Imagine a teacher saying "Suck my d***, Obama" in school.


Banning things that are Christian, the only things I can think of off the top of my head are teaching the bible, prayer in school, and creationism in a science class. Where is any other group allowed those luxuries?

Glad you mentioned that. In Texas, some school districts still offer the bible as literature in an elective course. Many school districts across the country wouldn't think of it, and we have plenty of people fighting tooth and nail to have it removed even as a secular elective here for its literary value. I guess they're afraid a high school student can't read the bible without converting them to Christianity or at least believing there is a God. And yet, you're telling me they can handle this other text with no problem and others have argued the same. If they can handle one why not the other - especially one that's filled with prose, poetry, proverbs, songs and has historical significance? Believer or not there is undeniable value in the bible to anyone that's objective. I have no problem with offering similar elective courses on the Qu'ran, or religion in general as long as they remained secular and objective.


Maybe you'd care to be more specific, but in general, Christians are not the group in this country who are oppressed and mis-treated. Isolated examples of Christian suppression in a school hardly account for the majority of situations in which schools endorse no particular religion, which, in a public school, is the way things should be.

Going into detail on that is a subject for another post, and I'm not talking about just public schools but also what is PC in society in general when it comes to the sensitivities of others. But trust me, the examples are not isolated.


Homosexuality content can be seen as an assault on Christian values, I'll give you that one. But calling this piece "homosexual porn" is taking things a little too far. It's looking at one aspect of a work and condemning the entire thing. It's ignoring the possibility that there is a beneficial message and literary merit because it's a book about gays.

It's like the line from Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart - pornography is hard to define but "I know it when I see it." That's pornography. I get the concept Jillian, it would hard to do a story on someone with Tourette syndrome and omit the cursing. You can't have gang members saying "doo doo head" and get the impact, but if there is a beneficial message to this work it CAN be made to public school students without the stuff I'm talking about.


And I'm not saying Christians shouldn't stand up for what they believe in, I'm just saying they shouldn't expect to always get their way. There are other people in this world, and there are things our children can learn and take meaning from which oppose Christian viewpoints. Exposing our kids to other religions and other ways of life isn't necessarily going to harm them for life or turn them against Christianity.

Who thinks we can always get our way? I certainly don't, and I've given many examples of compromises I'd be willing to make in the last few years, but the counteroffers don't seem to ever include any concessions.


You forgot Mel Gibson, or did you intentionally leave him out because he's a Christian and what he says is OK? Kidding, kidding, kidding! :D

OK, so I forgot Mel. I can say at least on his behalf that he was drunk :D


But, take the kooks (yeah, I said it!) at Westboro Baptist Church, they go on anti-homosexual tyrades all the time and get almost no news coverage. Why? Because they aren't a public figure; neither is the character in this piece.

Are you kidding me? They were in my newspaper yesterday or the day before. Heck, maybe it was today. A Google news search just now returned 306 hits, 328 for Fred Phelps, 163,000 for a Google web search of "God hates fags" (their words, not mine of course), 458,000 Google web hits for Westboro Baptist Church, 589,000 for Fred Phelps. They've been pretty public figures over the past couple of years.


But to be honest, the language used in this play is what gets me about it being allowed. Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer are banned in many schools because of the use of the n-word, but a school allows this? I don't see the logic in that.

You said it, not me ;)


Being opposed to it because you feel it is adult subject matter (sexual, not homosexual) not appropriate for students and the language is unacceptable for a school environment is different. I would think that group might be able to recognize the piece could contain literary value, just inappropriate literary value for high school teenagers. I guess the test of that is, would there be opposition if this was required reading in a college lit course?

As I think I've made clear it's all kinds of inappropriate for public school kids, not just the religious offenses. Required reading college is another matter, when my kids left home I had no more say... unless it involved money :D

But still, even then I don't the educational value in this work. We can do better.

I never said change is always bad,
but civil rights of blacks is an apples and oranges comparison.

Is it? It was thought allowing blacks the same rights as white people would be the downfall of society. Many think allowing gays the same rights as straights will be the downfall of society. Seems pretty similar to me.


I see no value in the book. I am sure there are much more educational books on the subject.

what does the book actually teach?

How can you say there are more educational books on the subject and then ask what it is supposed to teach? Have you read the summary of what the play is about? Have you read reader reviews elsewhere on the internet to see what the focus of the play is? Perhaps if you did, you would know what the book is teaching, and then could decide if it's a lesson which should be taught to high schoolers.


I see so many kids totally confused about their own sexuality in so many ways
because they are being taught all these different things and they have no direction for their own self.

Kids and adults are often confused about their sexuality, but banning pieces of work about alternative life styles isn't going to make that go away. I don't think people need to be "taught" about their own sexuality, you swing one way or the other, and it's up to them to find that direction. I would rather a teen read this play and figure out that he/she is a homosexual than think they must be straight and lead a life of misery because something is "missing". Would you rather kids be taught "Straight is great, gay no way!"?


I hear kids saying what is wrong with me I am 20 years old and never kissed.
What is wrong with me I can't get pregnant, I am 14.
20 year old boys saying they lay on the bed and SHOW 13 year old boys how to !@#% off because the 13 year old is afraid he is not doing it right.
I hear kids saying I have no idea if I am gay and I am worried I might be cause I don't want to be
I hear many many kids say they are not gay they just like doing it with the same sex but they are 100% straight

You and I must run in different circles. I've never see/heard an adult offer to show an adolescent how to masturbate. But regardless, that sort of behavior is not brought on by homosexual plays, it's brought on by being a pedophile. Being a homosexual does not mean one is a pedophile.

I guess I just find it baffling you attribute sexual confusion to books and plays rather than to parents and family life.

Is it? It was thought allowing blacks the same rights as white people would be the downfall of society. Many think allowing gays the same rights as straights will be the downfall of society. Seems pretty similar to me.

* It is apples and oranges and another subject of its own. Start a new topic and I am sure you will get the answer to this

How can you say there are more educational books on the subject and then ask what it is supposed to teach? Have you read the summary of what the play is about? Have you read reader reviews elsewhere on the internet to see what the focus of the play is? Perhaps if you did, you would know what the book is teaching, and then could decide if it's a lesson which should be taught to high schoolers.

* I noticed you stick up for the book and you say you have never read it either so how is that any better than my opinion? You can not make an informed statement that this book should be taught in schools.

Kids and adults are often confused about their sexuality, but banning pieces of work about alternative life styles isn't going to make that go away. I don't think people need to be "taught" about their own sexuality, you swing one way or the other, and it's up to them to find that direction. I would rather a teen read this play and figure out that he/she is a homosexual than think they must be straight and lead a life of misery because something is "missing". Would you rather kids be taught "Straight is great, gay no way!"?

*You swing one way or another but many kids and young adults think they are both or don't know which

You and I must run in different circles. I've never see/heard an adult offer to show an adolescent how to masturbate. But regardless, that sort of behavior is not brought on by homosexual plays, it's brought on by being a pedophile. Being a homosexual does not mean one is a pedophile.
* different circles--I stay off the I-M's now cause that is all I would hear from people I-M-ing me.
* and claiming one is only experimenting is a good way of them justifying they are neither gay or a pedophile.

I guess I just find it baffling you attribute sexual confusion to books and plays rather than to parents and family life.

*Many parents are not teaching their kids anything. In fact many parents add to their kids confusion by their lifestyle. Many are told they have three daddys a year that has to be confusing.

LOL, watch the sparks fly when I make such generalizations about blacks, illegal aliens or gays.

My point is generalizations are made about all sorts of people, and when talking about a group, it becomes cumbersome to use qualifiers before you say everything. It doesn't mean what is being said can be attributed to all members of that group, but for the sake of conversation and debate, generalizations are made.


And if adults choose such material what can I say? I can't believe anyone can justify that kind of content and subject matter for public school students. Our kids deserve better.

Like I said I feel it has to do with what the lesson for the students is supposed to be. I'd really like to see the lesson plan the teachers had for this book - what are the critical thinking questions? Group discussion questions? What are the themes the students are supposed to identify? Any teacher should be able to answer those questions about any and all subjects they teach, and if they can't, it has no business being taught (or that teacher has no business being a teacher).

I guess "our kids deserve better" still depends on the reason for the opposition of the play. I know you seem to think there is no way this play can have literary merit, but it's my opinion it might. Anything with literary merit is something our kids deserve - it's about education.

And I hope you didn't think I was implying you are of the opinion the book should be banned in the US and we should burn every copy of it - I do realize you oppose this for high schoolers, not for adults.


I appreciate you saying that my friend.

Come now, I'm a reasonable person. I don't think our schools are flawless and without corruption!


Folks can say "I don't believe in God" all day long and it won't offend me, Jillian. That isn't the offending part of the excerpt:


I don't believe in God. I think you should know that before we f*** again (Joe bites one of Louis's nipples.) . . . .
Oh God, Oh God, I believe, I believe.
(Joe and Louis begin to f*** again.)

They used the "f" word twice in the line, then insult God and our very faith. To portray faith in God coming from the ecstasy of a gay sexual encounter is offensive to the nth degree. In this age of 'sensitivity' that's a legitimate outrage.

I know saying "I don't believe in god" doesn't offend YOU, but that's not to say it's not offending others. In the second link you provided, references to the characters saying "Jesus Christ" or "God Damn" are specifically mentioned. Many people aren't offended by such language either, but apparently, this group is. I don't think it's a stretch to say this group is offended by "I don't believe in god", but I'll admit, I'm guessing here, so I could be wrong. It just seems that a statement like that would fall in line with something they would label as "offensive".

Regarding the use of the f-word, that goes into the language, I understand objecting to the work for the language (especially, as I said because of Huck Finn et all). But I think I read that passage a bit differently than you... I don't see is as faith coming from a gay sexual encounter, I see is as a humorous this-is-so-great-there-must-be-a-god! You know, like when something really really great happens and I say, "There IS a god!" I don't mean it, it's an expression. Is that still offensive? Probably. But is it less offensive than the implication that one "found" god through gay sex? I'm going to say probably. But again, I want to say this is how I'm reading that ONE passage - I don't know the context or the characters; you could be right, or we could both be wrong.


It has nothing to do someone saying they're an atheist, or a Christian, or a lesbian or whatever, period. Why should we care about that? It's this line, "Suck my d***, Mother Teresa." Now, I'm not Catholic so it doesn't offend me as much as it does some, but she is a beloved saint in their eyes. Imagine a teacher saying "Suck my d***, Obama" in school.

So what if a teacher said that? I mean, aside from it being generally inappropriate for teachers to express their political views, I don't really care. Maybe it doesn't bother me because I don't hold anyone to the saint status you hold Mother Theresa to, I don't know. But the fact remains this is a fictional play about a fictional character who is entitled to their fictional opinions. It is possible to disagree and/or be offended without having to protest.


Glad you mentioned that. In Texas, some school districts still offer the bible as literature in an elective course. Many school districts across the country wouldn't think of it, and we have plenty of people fighting tooth and nail to have it removed even as a secular elective here for its literary value. I guess they're afraid a high school student can't read the bible without converting them to Christianity or at least believing there is a God. And yet, you're telling me they can handle this other text with no problem and others have argued the same. If they can handle one why not the other - especially one that's filled with prose, poetry, proverbs, songs and has historical significance? Believer or not there is undeniable value in the bible to anyone that's objective. I have no problem with offering similar elective courses on the Qu'ran, or religion in general as long as they remained secular and objective.

Actually, I don't have a problem with the bible being taught as a work of literature. Remember, I'm a heathen, I think it's a big 'ol fiction book! :) That being said, the way the bible is taught DOES matter - if it is treated as literature, as stories, as poems, with symbolism, I see no problem. If it is taught as fact, as gospel, that's another story. Like you said, if it, or any other religious text is taught in a secular and objective manner, I see no problem. Holy hell - we agree on something! :eek:


Going into detail on that is a subject for another post, and I'm not talking about just public schools but also what is PC in society in general when it comes to the sensitivities of others. But trust me, the examples are not isolated.

It is getting off topic, I'm sorry I delved so much into it. I got carried away typing. PC-ness is subjective and changes for one group to another to another. Equality my foot! :)


It's like the line from Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart - pornography is hard to define but "I know it when I see it." That's pornography. I get the concept Jillian, it would hard to do a story on someone with Tourette syndrome and omit the cursing. You can't have gang members saying "doo doo head" and get the impact, but if there is a beneficial message to this work it CAN be made to public school students without the stuff I'm talking about.

I hate that line, I really do... pornography to one person is art to another. So you know porn when you see what you think is porn, but the guy down the street has a different opinion. It's too subjective and allows people to make rules to suit their particular agenda. As far as the message getting across to public school students in another way, I don't know. Maybe it can, maybe it can't. Maybe this piece contains something particular, something unique. Maybe the kids relate better to it, I don't know. Would their education be complete if they didn't read this? I know mine was, but that doesn't mean the entire thing is useless.


Who thinks we can always get our way? I certainly don't, and I've given many examples of compromises I'd be willing to make in the last few years, but the counteroffers don't seem to ever include any concessions.

Again, generalizations vs. individuals (notice how you said "I"). There are people (some on this board) who will not make compromises or concessions - it's their way or NO way. And believe me, I know it comes from both sides of the "god fence".


OK, so I forgot Mel. I can say at least on his behalf that he was drunk :D

Oh sure, justify his behavior because he was drunk! That makes it OK! :D


Are you kidding me? They were in my newspaper yesterday or the day before. Heck, maybe it was today. A Google news search just now returned 306 hits, 328 for Fred Phelps, 163,000 for a Google web search of "God hates fags" (their words, not mine of course), 458,000 Google web hits for Westboro Baptist Church, 589,000 for Fred Phelps. They've been pretty public figures over the past couple of years.

Westboro NEVER makes it into my news; maybe you hear about them more because geographically you're closer to them than I am. I know they make it all over the intertubes, but as far as my televised and print local and even national news (Today Show, if you can call that news... ) I never hear about them. It seems if I read about them it's in a local newspaper in a place where they've demonstrated, rarely anything on a national level.

EDIT TO ADD: Just checked their upcoming picket schedule - looks like they're hitting my area in the next few weeks. Maybe I'll direct them to Dupont Circle...


You said it, not me

I think we might agree again! I would much rather see students reading and studying Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, or Uncle Tom's Cabin, Of Mice and Men, Catcher in the Rye... pretty much anything on this list: The Forbidden Library: Banned and Challenged Books (http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/). It makes little sense to me how you can ban a book for using the n-word when it was an acceptable word of the time, but require (or have as an option) a book with the f-word in it multiple times. Oh, and that contains the n-word... As I said in another post - this school appears to have issues.


As I think I've made clear it's all kinds of inappropriate for public school kids, not just the religious offenses. Required reading college is another matter, when my kids left home I had no more say... unless it involved money :D

But still, even then I don't the educational value in this work. We can do better.

But I'm curious, if you think it has no literary value, why do you not oppose it for college reading? I don't mean standing up and protesting, but if it has no value, why should it belong in ANY classroom?

* It is apples and oranges and another subject of its own. Start a new topic and I am sure you will get the answer to this

I'd rather not continue to argue with you about who deserves equal rights.


* I noticed you stick up for the book and you say you have never read it either so how is that any better than my opinion? You can not make an informed statement that this book should be taught in schools.

I haven't said it should be taught in schools, I've said I see where it might have literary value, and if it does, it could be suitable for schools.


*You swing one way or another but many kids and young adults think they are both or don't know which

So there's no such thing as bisexuality?


* different circles--I stay off the I-M's now cause that is all I would hear from people I-M-ing me.
* and claiming one is only experimenting is a good way of them justifying they are neither gay or a pedophile.

Sorry to hear you are harassed on IM's, I'm not. And there is no justification for being a pedophile, please do not imply that I said that or agree with that point of view.


*Many parents are not teaching their kids anything. In fact many parents add to their kids confusion by their lifestyle. Many are told they have three daddys a year that has to be confusing.

So wouldn't the solution be to improve parenting and provide role models to kids? Does banning or protesting a play make people better parents or make kids less sexually confused?

A lot of what you are replying is not the point that I was making

Many people say just what you say and some even say how dare you impose your morals on your wife if she wants to see a guy then she should who are you to impose on her that she shouldn't.
So where do you draw the line that this is acceptable and that is not acceptable.
You say you are not for pedophiles but where between that book and much of the gay stuff kids are being taught
do YOU draw your line and how do you draw it without saying it is your values and should be followed as the norm?

A lot of what you are replying is not the point that I was making

Maybe I'm not replying to the point you are making because your point is disjointed and unclear.


Many people say just what you say and some even say how dare you impose your morals on your wife if she wants to see a guy then she should who are you to impose on her that she shouldn't.

Like this - what does this have to do with a play about homosexuals and AIDS being read in a high school class? How did we get here?


So where do you draw the line that this is acceptable and that is not acceptable.
You say you are not for pedophiles but where between that book and much of the gay stuff kids are being taught
do YOU draw your line and how do you draw it without saying it is your values and should be followed as the norm?

Really? Did you really just equate gays with pedophiles? Really?

All I'm saying is this play might have literary merit and it should not be banned from classrooms because it contains homosexual themes. It's my opinion and you are free to have a different one. All I've asked of you is to explain why you oppose the piece, which you still have not done.

Forget it. Don't explain yourself, it's not important anyway. Oppose the work if you want, oppose gays and pedophiles and other people's rights and morals. We're not getting anywhere.

NO I did not equate gays with pedophiles
I asked if everybody says not to impose your morals on others
Then where do you draw a line on what is right and wrong if there are to be no morals?
Who is to say a 28 year old teacher should not get involved with their 17 year old pupil?
Who is to say that there should not be three in a marriage?
Where do you draw the line to say we can teach to accept this but we can not teach to accept that?

I said you can have your opinion about the book but I have to question its educational purpose for school kids
And I don't see THAT being answered.
If you feel it is a good literary source fine but it doesn't answer the OP's question.
If it should be used in school.

NO I did not equate gays with pedophiles

Sure sounded like it to me.


I asked if everybody says not to impose your morals on others
Then where do you draw a line on what is right and wrong if there are to be no morals?
Who is to say a 28 year old teacher should not get involved with their 17 year old pupil?
Who is to say that there should not be three in a marriage?
Where do you draw the line to say we can teach to accept this but we can not teach to accept that?

Society decides it. The schools and the parents decide it. The students help decide it. I never said there should be no morals, and I never said this play should be read in the classroom. The law says a teacher shouldn't be involved with her student, and right now the law says three should not be in a marriage. It is up to those who wish to change those laws to challenge them, and it is up to society to decide if the laws should be changed and that those people deserve equal rights.


I said you can have your opinion about the book but I have to question its educational purpose for school kids
And I don't see THAT being answered.
If you feel it is a good literary source fine but it doesn't answer the OP's question.
If it should be used in school.

Perhaps you haven't been reading my other posts carefully enough, because I've stated where and how it's possible this play has literary merit and serves an educational purpose in school. Without reading the play myself I can't say it with authority, but a possibility has been presented - that's an answer. It's also been answered if it should be used in schools - if it is of literary merit, if it is used in the right context, with the right lesson plan, with a group of students who are capable of understanding the work and concepts presented in it, then yes, it can be considered for use in schools. But if other works like Huck Finn are banned in the same district for language, then NO, it should not be used.

Does that answer all of your questions? Are you ever going to answer mine?

Your point is about the story having merit.
My point is that society decides what is acceptable and the merit changes
The more we say is acceptable the closer we are to making even more acceptable.

You say The law says a teacher shouldn't be involved with her student, and right now the law says three should not be in a marriage. It is up to those who wish to change those laws to challenge them, and it is up to society to decide if the laws should be changed and that those people deserve equal rights.

So what was not acceptable 10 years ago is acceptable now and in 10 years things that we did not find acceptable today most probably will be and the more we accept the easier it is for the rest to be accepted.

And we've already established that change isn't always bad. I'm still failing to see your point - things change, society changes, our expectations change, what we view as acceptable and unacceptable changes, that's all fact. It doesn't mean you must agree with all of it, it doesn't mean you can't instill your individual values into your children and loved ones. I'm not sure what you are afraid of becoming acceptable, or what is acceptable now that you think is unacceptable and has caused some sort of damage.

Amazing, Nohelp--I see myself in your words about a man not demanding his wife not have male friends.

I also support Jillian here completely. At least her argument and rhetoric makes a heck of a lot more sense than yours does. I haven't read the work--but I can still see that language and subject matter (in this case homosexuality) can ADD to a story, if the rest of the story has merit. And it really DOES depend on HOW it's taught. For example--Sex education can be taught by saying "dont' have sex!!! EVER!!! Unless you're married, to a member of the opposit sex! When you're at least 30!!" That's ONE way to teach it. You can ALSO teach sex ed by letting kids ask questions, giving them facts, and having discussion about various sexual issues--pregnancy, diseases, birth control, orientation, etc. Which do YOU think would be more effective? Oh, I'm sorry. The way that I think would be more effective would be PROMOTING sex in teens! Better to just stick with the MORAL way of doing things, and let kids DIE because they didn't have enough information.

Same thing with this book. If it were taught right, it could give some pretty good discussion (to people with open minds, anyway--so let's just leave the religious right at the door, shall we?) about HIV/AIDS, homosexuality, vulgarity in literature, WHY the author chose specific phrases, what insight do we get from the setting, yadda yadda yadda.

While I agree that some of the classics should be on a high school kid's reading list---let's remember this was an advanced class. By the time I had reached my advanced English class my senior year (and yes, I'm aware I'm a minority in this) I had read, for fun or in class, the most recent Banned Book List I could get my hands on, a reading list my 7th grade english teacher gave us as a list of books that are often referenced in the real world (books that everyone should read, in other words), every Newberry Award book at our library, and a list of classics I got from Barnes & Noble. Most ADVANCED English classes deliberately have unusual books on them so that there's less chance of the student's having read them before and having a jump on the rest of the class. (My husband's AP English his senior year read all science fiction books--Fahrenheit 451, A Canticle for Liebowitz, the Lathe of Heaven, etc), and the English elective class that filled fastest in my high school read only banned books.

I am not condoning the language in this particular book, nor am I condoning the subject matter. I do, however, equate the uproar and furor about it to the same uproar and furor that "His Dark Materials" by Pullman got. It comes across to me as a whole bunch of righteously indignant parents that want to protect their poor innocent lambs from such horrible vulgar material--when those SAME kids have probably seen and heard worse on the family TV, or unmonitored internet.

PS--Just for fun, I'm going to see what I can do about getting that law changed about 3 people in a marriage. I mean really--who would that hurt?

You just aren't getting what I mean.
Youins are making it sound like I am saying an all or nothing type thing and that is not what I am saying

You're right, I'm not getting what you mean. Maybe you're not explaining it well enough, maybe I'm having a brain block. But here's what I think you mean:

Society's values change over time and you feel they are headed in a negative direction with regards to morals. You feel this play pushes the envelope and contains inappropriate subject matter which should not be discussed in schools (possibly anywhere). You object to the themes, the language, the content - everything. You think there is no way this play has literary value. You think we should be more conservative in what we consider acceptable because in time morals and values will decay and everything will be acceptable, causing society to become morally bankrupt.

Am I right? Does that about sum it up?

I also support Jillian here completely.

Thanks! Glad someone does! :)


PS--Just for fun, I'm going to see what I can do about getting that law changed about 3 people in a marriage. I mean really--who would that hurt?

I support you here, but that's a different thread!

To me it is very simple . If the school did not think it would be an issues then they would not have gone about it in a deceitful manner .

Now the parents have to be reactive and to attend school board meetings to change that ridiculous policy. If the board does not consent then they have to be electorally removed. It does not need to be any more complicated than that . The community of parents ,who are the tax payers who fund this school have a big say in content. Whatever the curriculum is trying to teach can be taught without this " play ".If they can't get satisfaction they should storm the Bastille.

School districts across the country agonize over Huckleberry Finn ,and many choose not to assign it in the curriculum. But the bigoted comments throughout this play is acceptable because the play's theme is promoting the homosexual lifestyle ? [well they say it's theme is hope ;so we are to assume that throughout the literary world there are no other more acceptable books that celebrate hope as an alternative ]

Look I will not make a critique of the play because I have not read it. For all I know it may be one of the great literary masterpieces of all time. So is ' Lolita 'so I'm told . Still I do not think that should be required reading in an English curriculum. If the student chooses on their own to read it then that is between them and their parents .Expanding ones exposure to great literature should not end after schooling is complete. But there is probably no good reason for high school students to become so well versed .
There are plenty of books that deal with hope . That makes me think that assigning it based on that theme is a canard to hide another agenda.

If the community standards are not considered or are to be disregarded then the education system needs a huge overhaul .

You're right, I'm not getting what you mean. Maybe you're not explaining it well enough, maybe I'm having a brain block. But here's what I think you mean:

Society's values change over time and you feel they are headed in a negative direction with regards to morals. You feel this play pushes the envelope and contains inappropriate subject matter which should not be discussed in schools (possibly anywhere). You object to the themes, the language, the content - everything. You think there is no way this play has literary value. You think we should be more conservative in what we consider acceptable because in time morals and values will decay and everything will be acceptable, causing society to become morally bankrupt.

Am I right? Does that about sum it up?


Sums it up pretty well along with what Toms said AND
I am not saying it has to be CONSERVATIVE, RELIGIOUS, or going back to the 50's and 60's standards OR anything like that.
I am just saying I feel they should go about HOW they teach kids about sexuality in a more constructive, practical way than some literary stuff that seems to have no value and as Tom said if it did have value to their education WHY was it snuck into the school.
Why didn't anybody offer the educational content they got out of it so that it might have a chance at not being so protested. I have yet to hear that there was any value and I have been hearing about the story for a few days now.

I strongly believe that if they want to teach sex, gay sex, etc in the school it should be taught more along the lines of practical lifestyle for what kids are actually facing in their everyday life basically. Sure they can be taught ALL about the homosexual lifestyle but go about it in a different way.

My point is generalizations are made about all sorts of people, and when talking about a group, it becomes cumbersome to use qualifiers before you say everything. It doesn't mean what is being said can be attributed to all members of that group, but for the sake of conversation and debate, generalizations are made.

Jillian, I know we're going to reach one of those agree to disagree points, but one more time with feeling! :D

I get what generalizations are about, but the type of generalization you used would get me called more than a "doo-doo head" were I to use them.


Like I said I feel it has to do with what the lesson for the students is supposed to be.

Come on Jillian, this is not the kind of material high school students need to be studying regardless of the lesson plan. Seriously, it is graphic, profane, vulgar, mocks religion and has a line which is the antithesis of comprehensive sex education, "Keep going. Infect me. I don't care. I don't care."


I guess "our kids deserve better" still depends on the reason for the opposition of the play. I know you seem to think there is no way this play can have literary merit, but it's my opinion it might. Anything with literary merit is something our kids deserve - it's about education.

Here is what the North Shore Student Advocacy said about it:


“After almost 15 years of school advocacy and reviewing many objectionable books and curricula, I have never seen anything this vulgar and harmful to students,” says Lora Sue Hauser, Executive Director of North Shore Student Advocacy. “Parents, taxpayers and concerned citizens must force themselves to read these excerpts, as horrific as they are, so you know what kids are being exposed to. The school justifies this egregious choice because of its themes of hope. Evidently, all great literature with themes of hope have already been exhausted so teachers need to start offering pornography. We say – enough.”

This work should offend people from all walks. I see no educational value in having high school students read lines like this:


"Oh. Oh God."
"The Body is the garden of the soul."
"What was that?"
"Plasma orgasmata."
"Yeah well no doubt."
"Whoa whoa whoa wait a minute excuse me please. You f**ked this angel?"
"She f**ked me. She has...well, she has eight vaginas."

Check out these photocopied pages (http://culturecampaign.com/documents/Angels_in_America_Excerpts.pdf). It's even more disgusting than the previous excerpts. Surely you can't seriously find the value in this as high school educational material. And, as tom keeps pointing out their secrecy about these types of incidents tells me they know it's going to offend parents yet they go ahead with it anyway. It's an utter disregard for the parents and that is unacceptable to me.


And I hope you didn't think I was implying you are of the opinion the book should be banned in the US and we should burn every copy of it - I do realize you oppose this for high schoolers, not for adults.

The thought never crossed my mind.


Come now, I'm a reasonable person. I don't think our schools are flawless and without corruption!

My appreciation was genuine with nothing implied :)


I know saying "I don't believe in god" doesn't offend YOU, but that's not to say it's not offending others. In the second link you provided, references to the characters saying "Jesus Christ" or "God Damn" are specifically mentioned. Many people aren't offended by such language either, but apparently, this group is.

I've posted so many links I don't know which second link which we're talking about, but I assure you the "I don't believe in god" line is not a problem here.


But I think I read that passage a bit differently than you... I don't see is as faith coming from a gay sexual encounter, I see is as a humorous this-is-so-great-there-must-be-a-god!

Give me credit here Jillian, I knew that was coming. From the tone and context I've read I have no doubt it was intentionally offensive.


So what if a teacher said that?

Really? A white liberal Democratic icon that everyone knows is not racist said much, much less and has caught hell the last few days. The"first black president" said much, much less in South Carolina weeks ago and is still catching hell for that.


But the fact remains this is a fictional play about a fictional character who is entitled to their fictional opinions. It is possible to disagree and/or be offended without having to protest.

Sure, absolutely... and if it were being taught to private high school students instead of students in a school receiving public financing we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Holy hell - we agree on something! :eek:

Oh it ain't the first time ;)


I hate that line, I really do... pornography to one person is art to another.

I love the line, lol. And THAT piece is pornography... it ain't no Harlequin romance.


Oh sure, justify his behavior because he was drunk! That makes it OK! :D

I've seen worse defenses, lol.


EDIT TO ADD: Just checked their upcoming picket schedule - looks like they're hitting my area in the next few weeks. Maybe I'll direct them to Dupont Circle...

I think I'd like to see them show up at Sturgis on about August 4th. Maybe the NY piers during fleet week.


But I'm curious, if you think it has no literary value, why do you not oppose it for college reading? I don't mean standing up and protesting, but if it has no value, why should it belong in ANY classroom?

Like I said, when the kids leave home I have no more say, they make their own decisions. I did throw in the proviso about money though, I would not finance an education at a college that offered this kind of material as part of the curriculum. I still don't think it belongs in any classroom... we can do better.

Jillian, I know we're going to reach one of those agree to disagree points, but one more time with feeling! :D

Your right - I don't know why I keep going on about it.


Come on Jillian, this is not the kind of material high school students need to be studying regardless of the lesson plan. Seriously, it is graphic, profane, vulgar, mocks religion and has a line which is the antithesis of comprehensive sex education, "Keep going. Infect me. I don't care. I don't care."

I think a piece like this might be suitable if it falls in line with a particular lesson plan. Not simply, "Have unprotected sex and get AIDS" but let's say the school has a high number of gay students, and/or a high incidence of AIDS infection. A piece such as this might be more relatable to them, it might get through to them. That being said I don't think that is the case in this school (or probably most schools) but I don't dismiss that it might have merit in the right place. And I totally disagree that this is the antithesis of comprehensive sex ed - comprehensive sex ed is teaching kids how to AVOID infection, not contract it. It's about discussing homosexuality in the same way we discuss heterosexuality, not providing play-by-play directions and ideas on how to talk dirty.


Here is what the North Shore Student Advocacy said about it:

And I see no reason parents shouldn't object. If parents don't want their kids reading this, that's fine, they should get a say. The school board is not the end all be all of education - parents need to be involved, students need to be involved. Removing this work will not harm one's education, therefore, if the parents object it should be removed. My point is it's possible the work has literary merit and in the right place with the right group could be acceptable. If the only theme the administrators are claiming is in this work is "hope" then certainly there are less controversial pieces which can be selected. But again, that doesn't mean the entire piece is literary trash.


This work should offend people from all walks. I see no educational value in having high school students read lines like this:


"Oh. Oh God."
"The Body is the garden of the soul."
"What was that?"
"Plasma orgasmata."
"Yeah well no doubt."
"Whoa whoa whoa wait a minute excuse me please. You f**ked this angel?"
"She f**ked me. She has...well, she has eight vaginas."

And here you're still focusing on the language, not the overall themes of the play. Is the language brash? Yes. Is it appropriate for the majority of high school students to be read in the classroom? Not really. But does that mean it holds absolutely no educational value? No.


Check out these photocopied pages (http://culturecampaign.com/documents/Angels_in_America_Excerpts.pdf). It's even more disgusting than the previous excerpts. Surely you can't seriously find the value in this as high school educational material. And, as tom keeps pointing out their secrecy about these types of incidents tells me they know it's going to offend parents yet they go ahead with it anyway. It's an utter disregard for the parents and that is unacceptable to me.

Most of the excerpts in that link are ones which have already been referenced. Beyond that, the pages are picked from the book, not presented in order, with no idea of character development. So I can't say it has value as high school material or not because it's not a complete work.

And I believe I agreed with you that there is something funny going on in this school district, given their previous actions. It appears to me someone high up on the chain is a gay rights activist and wants to bring attention to his cause by doing things which make the news. And no, that's not right, and no, I don't agree with pushing one's agenda in such a way, but I still don't think those actions mean the work is utter trash.


I've posted so many links I don't know which second link which we're talking about, but I assure you the "I don't believe in god" line is not a problem here.

I was referring to the pdf link you gave, the one which tallys the number of curse words at the top. Given that link and the way things are presented, it appears to me, "I don't believe in god" is a problem to this group - not the only problem, but it is a problem.

Interestingly enough, the two links you gave:

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/content/img/f33785/Excerpts_from_Angels_in_America.pdf (with the tally)

and

http://culturecampaign.com/documents/Angels_in_America_Excerpts.pdf (with the photo copies)

shows that the people in the first link removed some content surrounding the "I don't believe in god" line. I'm not saying that excuses the work, but it makes the group a little dishonest in my eyes.


Really? A white liberal Democratic icon that everyone knows is not racist said much, much less and has caught hell the last few days. The"first black president" said much, much less in South Carolina weeks ago and is still catching hell for that.

And I believed I qualified my statements by saying "I don't care. I said nothing of the rest of the world. And I still stand by what I said - it is possible to disagee and/or be offended by something and not protest it.


I love the line, lol. And THAT piece is pornography... it ain't no Harlequin romance.

One man's trash is another's treasure. Some people equate Harlequin romance novels to porn, some think Playboy is art. A photo of a nude woman - porn or art? It's subjective, which is why that quote serves an individual's purpose, not a concrete purpose.

comprehensive sex ed - comprehensive sex ed is teaching kids how to AVOID infection, not contract it. It's about discussing homosexuality in the same way we discuss heterosexuality, not providing play-by-play directions and ideas on how to talk dirty.


Exactly basically what I am getting at teaching them responsibly. With the high teen pregnancy rate it seems like they are teaching here's a condom, here's how to put it on, now do not get pregnant but if you do you can get an abortion if you want.
Instead of teaching this is what sex is and these are the consequences if...

Your right - I don't know why I keep going on about it.

Then stop it!! You're supposed to be agreeing with me by now, LOL ;)

OK, just a few brief remarks...


And here you're still focusing on the language, not the overall themes of the play. Is the language brash?

Nope, not just the language, the content is an affront to my faith. A school is not the place to offend certain groups of people - we've already determined that with the Mark Twain references. Is it OK to offend those those in the religious community but not blacks?


Interestingly enough, the two links you gave... shows that the people in the first link removed some content surrounding the "I don't believe in god" line. I'm not saying that excuses the work, but it makes the group a little dishonest in my eyes.

Oh come on, that's a stretch. The North Shore Student Advocacy group just gave examples and said "(THIS LIST IS ONLY A SAMPLE)." The other photocopied pages. I see no reason to suspect dishonesty based on that.


And I believed I qualified my statements by saying "I don't care. I said nothing of the rest of the world. And I still stand by what I said - it is possible to disagee and/or be offended by something and not protest it.

Sure, no problem. And I said "we" as in it would not have been an issue in the first place. When you're talking public funds the rules are different, the taxpayers have the right - and duty - to object to offensive material. Just ask the ACLU.


One man's trash is another's treasure. Some people equate Harlequin romance novels to porn, some think Playboy is art. A photo of a nude woman - porn or art? It's subjective, which is why that quote serves an individual's purpose, not a concrete purpose.

I'm reasonable, I do think there is a difference between tasteful nudity and porn - and also between romance and pure wanton lust, lewdness, lascivious(ness) (the author of the work's own word). Using that word in the way the author did tells me a lot about his intent.

Nope, not just the language, the content is an affront to my faith. A school is not the place to offend certain groups of people - we've already determined that with the Mark Twain references. Is it OK to offend those those in the religious community but not blacks?

I didn't say it's OK to offend anyone - I said it's OK to take the book out of classes if the parents don't want it there. But that language and that content does not mean the play has no literary merit.


Oh come on, that's a stretch. The North Shore Student Advocacy group just gave examples and said "(THIS LIST IS ONLY A SAMPLE)." The other photocopied pages. I see no reason to suspect dishonesty based on that.

I see it differently. I'm shocked, how about you? :D


Sure, no problem. And I said "we" as in it would not have been an issue in the first place. When you're talking public funds the rules are different, the taxpayers have the right - and duty - to object to offensive material. Just ask the ACLU.

Where did I say people shouldn't have the option to object to offensive material? Where did I say this book should be taught in schools or be on school reading lists? You're implying that I'm outraged by this book being removed from the required reading list, or outraged that there is outrage about it. I'm not. I'm saying it is possible it has literary merit, and if it does, it deserves consideration for the classroom, but that it's up to the school board, the parents, the students and the teachers together to decide if it is included in the lesson plan


I'm reasonable, I do think there is a difference between tasteful nudity and porn - and also between romance and pure wanton lust, lewdness, lascivious(ness) (the author of the work's own word). Using that word in the way the author did tells me a lot about his intent.

You said "I'm reasonable" - and that's my point. YOU might be, but someone else might not be, and a statement such as "I know it when I see it" is so totally open ended, it might as well not even be there. For example (trust me, I wish I were kidding), I know several women who would throw their husbands out of the house and consider divorce for owning a Playboy, and at least one who gets furious if her husband even glances in the direction of the local Hooters; is that "reasonable"? And for the record, these are not conservative church-going saintly women. They consider Playboy and Hooters to be about as offensive at it gets - is that "reasonable"? I don't think so. Then again, my hubby has had a subscription for the past three years. It that reasonable? I think it is - but it's all subjective. So the statement "I know it when I see it" is not cut and dry, it's subjective and it serves the purpose of the individual, which does nothing to serve the general population.

But moving on to the words the author used - it's still possible for a piece to be written in such a way as to be erotic and still have merit. This play has received a Tony Award, a Pulitzer Prize, it's been acclaimed by the Kennedy Center, and several drama organizations. Do you think all of these groups are mistaken or in on a pro-homosexual porn movement? Or is it possible the play has merit and is acceptable reading material in the right place at the right time?