Our good friend Linda Harvey of Mission America (please support her wonderful work!) noted in a Dec 2006 e-mail that the State of Maine has published “Maine’s Best Practices in Bullying and Harassment Prevention” which are essentially recommendations for all state school districts. Here are a few excerpts (emphasis ours):

• “Discuss ways of involving students in planning efforts for Bullying Prevention activities such as through a Gay Straight Alliance, Civil Rights Teams, Peer Leadership, etc.” [pages 8-9]

• “Students at risk for bullying include those who ‘don’t fit in’, such as those who are or are perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or questioning, those who differ from the majority of their classmates with regard to race, ethnicity, or religion, those who have differing social or physical abilities, and those who are economically disadvantaged.” [page 10]

• “Have an explicit commitment to social justice and teach, both formally and informally, about the dynamics of power, privilege, and oppression that impact all students. Such a commitment is reflected in an inclusive curriculum that teaches critical thinking, and a school environment that encourages and supports the development of active and effective student groups that reflect this commitment, such as Civil Rights teams and Gay/Straight Alliances.” [page 10, recommended again on page 18]

• “For boys: interventions challenging homophobia and narrow gender roles and the use of ‘gay/lesbian’ as an insult.” [page 35]

A quote from GLSEN’s founder and executive director Kevin Jennings — the same GLSEN which designated this week (Jan 22-26, 2007) as No Name Calling Week, an opportunity for homosexual activists to influence your children.

TAKE ACTION — Make your school administrators aware of the origins of No Name Calling Week and of Kevin Jennings’ comments which reveal his character and (in)sincerity about tolerance/diversity…and then demand that GLSEN be refused access to students in your community.

Excerpted from When Silence Would Have Been Golden, by Peter LaBarbera, published April 10, 2006, by Concerned Women for America:

GLSEN’S JENNINGS: !&%#! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!
Addressing a church audience on March 20, 2000 in New York City — just days before “Fistgate” — GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings offered a stinging (and quite intolerant) assessment of how to deal with religious conservatives:

Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] … over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — … I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F—] ’em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!⁹

It should be noted that GLSEN and Jennings make heavy use of the words “respect” and “tolerance” in their public rhetoric and in descriptions of their programs.¹⁰

Continue reading at CWA…

Listen Online

Monday, January 22, 2007 — MBN’s Jon Gauger interviews Laurie Higgins, a staff member at an affluent suburban Chicago area high school, regarding normalization and celebration of homosexuality in public schools. Mrs. Higgins offers cogent reasoning that you can employ with your local school administrators and your church leaders. This radio programs presents a rare opportunity to hear from a professional who has really made a difference in one of the most politically and morally liberal communities in Illinois.

(This interview is in hour 1, segment 2, and starts approximately 4 minutes into the audio. The segment is 4 minutes in duration.)

TAKE ACTION — Listen and then keep Laurie Higgins in your prayers.

What the NEA (National Education Association) refuses to admit as it (again, below) recommends pro-homosexual “anti-harassment training” is that such training invariably undermines the firmly-held beliefs of Christian and other students who believe homosexual behavior is wrong. “Anti-bias” and “gay”-inclusive “bullying” programs rely on the very jaundiced work of groups like GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), which have a long track record of assailing and distorting Christian and conservative teachings on homosexuality.

Why can’t schools simply ban all “bullying” or abuse of ANY students without getting into the homosexuality promotion business? — Peter LaBarbera

——————————

From NEA’s website:

Rights Watch

Teaching Tolerance or Attacking Religion?

How far can schools go in teaching tolerance for gays and lesbians? Two federal courts tackle this thorny question.

It’s the latest battleground in the culture wars. In the wake of several high-profile cases holding school districts liable for failing to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) students from peer harassment, many schools have adopted training programs intended to reduce harassment and promote acceptance of GLBT students.

Some parents find these programs objectionable because they conflict with their deeply held religious belief that homosexuality is sinful, and they don’t want the schools to undermine their parental authority by teaching a contrary lesson.

Federal courts in Maryland and Kentucky recently struggled to resolve this conflict, with differing results.

In a dispute that is still ongoing, the Montgomery County (Maryland) Board of Education last year adopted a health education curriculum designed to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians. Among other things, course materials described as a “myth” the belief that “homosexuality is a sin” and characterized certain Christian religions as “intolerant and Biblically misguided” because they are “opposed to homosexuality.”

In a lawsuit filed in May 2005 by two groups of parents and citizens, a federal district court issued an injunction prohibiting the Maryland school district from implementing the curriculum. The court found that the course materials violate the Constitution by attacking the views of certain religions, while promoting the views of other religions that “are more friendly towards the homosexual lifestyle.”

The school district has agreed to revise the controversial curriculum. That process is still underway.

In the Kentucky case decided in February, a federal district court ruled that parents don’t have the right to have their children opt out of mandatory “student diversity training” designed to stop the harassment of GLBT students.

The program adopted by the Board of Education of Boyd County, Kentucky, consists of a one-hour video, followed by comments from an instructor and questions from students. Students who refuse to attend receive an unexcused absence.

Excerpted from NEA Releases Controversial Statement on Website, published Jan 3, 2006, by Family News in Focus:

A ‘school safety’ link for the National Education Association says “a great public school is a fundamental right of every child, free from intimidation and harassment, and safe for all students, including those who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered.” Linda Harvey with Mission America says the site uncovers an agenda.

“If anyone ever had a doubt before that there is a deliberate and well-funded and highly influential gay agenda in schools, then this should convince them that there is indeed that going on.”

She says the NEA is essentially saying in order to have safe schools we need to approve of homosexuality.

“That’s their recommendation, and it’s a false one; it’s a misleading one and one that is very likely to endanger millions of students.”

Finn Laursen with the Christian Educators Association agrees with the anti-bullying message, but says the NEA is treading into unsafe waters with its pro-gay, safe-school message.

“As parents and educators we ought to say, ‘No, we won’t tolerate harassment or bullying. But we shouldn’t be promoting something to our children that we know has major medical, psychological implications and as a Christian, we believe is sin.”

Laursen says the NEA can promote safe schools without promoting a political agenda.

As the new Congress convenes in January, hate crimes legislation and ENDA (employment non-discrimination) are high on the priority list. Read on to see where similar legislation has taken our British friends…

Excerpted from Homophobia Spies in the Classroom, published Dec 28, 2006, by Evening Standard:

Schools that fail to show enthusiasm in rooting out prejudice against homosexuals should be reported to the police by pupils and parents, a Home Office report recommended yesterday.

It called for parents and children to identify schools that ignore “homophobic” language in the playground and teachers who produce “homophobic” lessons.

And it called for head teachers to bring lessons about “homophobia” on to school timetables and to involve their pupils in gay “awareness weeks”.

The advice from Home Secretary John Reid‘s officials comes at a time of deep concern among churches that new gay rights laws due next spring will bar traditional teaching on sexual morality in schools and force them instead to include gay rights dogma in lessons.

The paper on “homophobic hate crime” is aimed at guiding police forces, local authorities, social services and schools among other public bodies.

…Urging that school incidents be reported to a “hate crime co-ordinator”…It called for reporting systems to “allow pupils and parents to make referrals direct if they feel the school is not taking the issue seriously.”

The report added: “The seriousness of using homophobic language is not fully appreciated in schools…”

Home Office minister Tony McNulty [Minister for Police & Security, pictured right] said: “…People who commit homophobic crime need to know their prejudices and actions will be tackled…”

…Colin Hart (pictured left) of the Christian Institute think tank that backed the Roberts said yesterday: “There is an element of desperation about this advice. No-one wants to see any kind of bullying in schools. But this is not about bullying of pupils who others think are homosexual. It is about punishing schools unless they try to stop pupils using “gay” as a perjorative word.”

…The Home Office guidance also said that gay lobby groups could set up “third party reporting centres” to pass to police details of “homophobic” incidents which gay individuals themselves have been too scared to report to police.

Police should then record the names and details of individuals passed on by gay lobby groups, it said.

Continue reading in Evening Standard…

By Linda Harvey of Mission America:

These incidents–vandalism, assault, intimidation–are ALREADY crimes under existing law. Adding extra punishment for “sexual orientation” incidents only makes homosexuals receive more protection than others. Is this fair?

“Hate crimes” have DECREASED in recent years, including those for sexual orientation…Check out the FBI’s web site on hate crimes, and read the stats for yourself.

These laws are a back door way to “bless” homosexuality, because they imply that it’s wrong to oppose the behavior.

We have had a law (since 1990) that enables law enforcement to count sexual orientation among hate crimes, but not to give extra punishment. Those extra penalties are what is currently being sought.

But just based on the 1990 federal law, some school districts started “anti-bias” lessons that included sexual orientation along with race and religion. Kids through curricula like the anti-Christian “Healing the Hate” middle school program, are indoctrinated to not only approve homosexuality, but to believe anyone who opposes it is evil and potentially violent. This classic propaganda is sure to escalate if a federal law is passed that gives offenders in incidents involving “sexual orientation” extra punishment.

The laws we have now are fine for protecting all citizens against crime. The new proposal is based on the lie that homosexuals are an unchanging minority who are “born that way,” which is not supportable by research or observed sexual practices of U.S. adults.

It also threatens the religious liberty of those who believe this is a harmful and sinful lifestyle. Hate crimes laws that include sexual orientation are being used in other countries to indict and fine Christians, even pastors, who publicly oppose homosexuality. Given the aggressiveness and ceaseless demands of “gay” activists,do we want to lose that right?

For the protection of our children against indoctrination and for the protection of our freedom to oppose homosexuality and to believe the whole Gospel, we must make Congress understand our opposition to adding “sexual orientation” to hate crimes laws.