[speechlesstx]

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?" 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?

[Choux]

Grow up, Tex, grow up.

[speechlesstx]

Grow up, Tex, grow up.

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

[Choux]

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. :)

[speechlesstx]

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."

[Fr_Chuck]

Just the reason we home school

[J_9]

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

[Skell]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?"

[jillianleab]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[templelane]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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...

[BABRAM]

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.

[sGt HarDKorE]

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.

[jillianleab]

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...

[Skell]

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!

[Synnen]

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?

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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 (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 while doing just that.