[speechlesstx]

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.

[jillianleab]

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.

[N0help4u]

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.

[jillianleab]

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. 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?

[jillianleab]

* 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?

[N0help4u]

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?

[jillianleab]

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.

[N0help4u]

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.

[jillianleab]

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?

[N0help4u]

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.

[jillianleab]

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.

[Synnen]

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?

[N0help4u]

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

[jillianleab]

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?

[jillianleab]

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!

[tomder55]

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 .

[N0help4u]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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. 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.

[jillianleab]

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. 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/conten...in_America.pdf (with the tally)

and

http://culturecampaign.com/documents...a_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.

[N0help4u]

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...