[speechlesstx]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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?"

[jillianleab]

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)

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 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.

[N0help4u]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

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 :)

[NeedKarma]

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?

[N0help4u]

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?

[NeedKarma]

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

[tomder55]

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

[N0help4u]

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

[NeedKarma]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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

I 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.

[N0help4u]

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.

[jillianleab]

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.

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?

[startover22]

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... :)

[jillianleab]

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?

[N0help4u]

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.

[jillianleab]

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.

[startover22]

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. ;)

[jillianleab]

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.