Advanced Search

Christian Legal Group Protests New Pro-Gay Curriculum

By
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, May. 06 2008 03:24 PM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

Attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal group, are challenging a newly proposed lesson plan by schools in Minneapolis, Minn., to carry out what ADF claims amounts to the homosexual indoctrination of elementary school students.

As part of a new "Welcoming Schools" campaign, introduced by the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign (HRC), students will learn from an early age that same-sex attraction is normal and healthy, that “gender identity” is a fluid concept, and that all families are unique, even those with two “dads” or “moms.”

"It is clear that the goal of HRC is to implement an educational program to indoctrinate young children with social viewpoints that are extremely controversial, out of the mainstream, and rely on unproven scientific theory that runs counter to American cultural and scholastic interests," ADF said in a letter to Minneapolis schools.

Although the HRC claims that the new lesson plan is meant to curb bullying and "create learning environments in which all learners are welcomed and respected," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks rejected the assertion.

“HRC says the program is designed to stop bullying, even though its true intent is to promote the homosexual agenda. If HRC merely cared about bullying, they would simply endorse the school district’s vigorous ‘Bullying and Hazing Policy.’ Parents and school officials need to be aware of what HRC is really trying to do,” Nimocks said in a statement.

“When school officials have to choose between protecting children in those families or furthering the homosexual agenda, the choice is obvious: protecting our children comes first,” he added.

In their memo to the school system, the ADF emphasized that the new curriculum would undoubtedly create a firestorm of disciplinary issues as the “gender identity” of students becomes impossible to determine.

“Schools, bathrooms, locker rooms, and other intimate places will no longer be protected from members of the opposite sex once ‘gender identity’ becomes standard behavior for students. From an enforcement standpoint, school officials would be unable to discern whether a boy who is using the girls’ restroom is a sexual predator, prankster, or one who sincerely believes that he is somehow a girl,” the memo points out.

Currently, the “Welcoming Schools” curriculum is being implemented in three school districts across the nation, with its gradual implementation in other districts soon to follow.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
Daniel Paul
  • Wed May 14, 2008 9:41 am
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
Ifeelfine72 "Hence, homosexuality is no more sinful than eating shellfish according to Lev. "

There are two things the New Testement does. In some situations it states freedom from the Law and in others it upholds it (I did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it". As stated in my previous post the New Testement upholds the law concerning homosexuality. Under grace marriage between a man and woman is a foundational example of Christ and the Church.

As for shell fish..."But food will not commned us to God;we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat." 1 Cor. 8:8

"One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only." Romans 14:2.

FYI, many shell fish can many you sick if it isn't caught, kept and cooked correctly. We know that now. They had no way of doing this (can you imagine eating shrimp that has been sitting our raw at an outdoor market all day?). Some of the law concerning food was to teach us how to deny ourselves (such as fasting) and was not about the food at all.

Just for the pork fans here...what a pig eats turns into what you eat in about 4 hours. With a cow it's about 2 days. Pork used to be (and some places still is) reconstituted slop. This is why the pork industry now feeds a specific 'healthy' diet to it's porkers.
Daniel Paul
  • Wed May 14, 2008 9:21 am
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
All righty then....

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:26-27

Greek: natural (5446) physical (by impl) instinctive.
This means physical actions.

Old Testament confirmed by the New Testament. Anyone who still thinks God approves of homosexual behavior please provide scripture to back up your statement. This is "Christian Post" so we are discussing the Christian view vs. the non-Christian view here. I believe these verses to be quite clear on Gods position.
Chris333
  • Tue May 13, 2008 9:16 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
ifeelfine,

"The Bible always addresses homosexual relationships the exact same way it deals with heterosexual ones."

??? The Bible never said that heterosexual relationships were an abomination, there is no place where after rejecting God people were given over to heterosexual relationships. Paul clearly addresses husbands and wives, not husbands and husbands, or wives and wives. My question is, why does the Bible not treat relationships ambiguously, it should be a no brainer that if all relationships should be in love then homosexual relationships should be in love too. That doesn't seem to be the issue.

"What denomination are you? Great. Now is everyone else from every other denomination going to hell because they aren't in your denomination?"

???Where did I ever give you this impression, you are trying to slander me because you haven't been able to deal with my points. Stick to the topic and don't try to put something on another person which there is no evidence for. Are you confused with who you are talking to or something?

"And you haven't dealt with the slavery issue, you've played semantic gymnastics to get around it, like you always do."

You really lost it on this post, are you sure you are talking to me? Do you know what "semantic gymnastics" are? That means that you try to stretch the meaning of words to an extent which is not in adherence to the obvious meaning in order to support your position. Can you show a single example where I have done this (you can use any post I have ever written)? If not then you are slandering me unjustifiably. As far as dealing with the slavery issue, go back and read everything I posted (obviously you ignored it).

I cannot carry a conversation with you on any level if you are going to make these kinds of absurd claims (I am not trying to be mean here, but this is really going way too far). I have stated my position clearly. You have two choices now. 1) deal with the points I have actually raised, or 2) State your case and support it with evidence. I have not seen you do either.
ifeelfine72
  • Tue May 13, 2008 7:33 am
  • : 0
  • : 2
  • Flag
Chris: The Bible always addresses homosexual relationships the exact same way it deals with heterosexual ones.

What denomination are you? Great. Now is everyone else from every other denomination going to hell because they aren't in your denomination?

And you haven't dealt with the slavery issue, you've played semantic gymnastics to get around it, like you always do.
Chris333
  • Tue May 13, 2008 6:57 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Bmore,

I have no idea what you are talking about, please quote what I said. The only thing I said remotely close to that was some response to ifeelfine, where I said that Paul was not addressing "unloving" homosexual relationships but all homosexual relationships.
BmoreTeacher
  • Tue May 13, 2008 6:32 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Jar, once again, you condemn me, although you do not know me. Christ is in my heart, you have no authority to say otherwise. Only Jesus himself may say that.

Chris, the way I interpret your post is that if St. Paul addressed homosexual unloving desires, then awesome, mine are full of love, I'm out of that hot water.
Chris333
  • Tue May 13, 2008 1:12 am
  • : 2
  • : 1
  • Flag
Also ifeelfine,

I suggest giving up the slavery argument, it is not comparable to homosexuality, and your postion has been constantly dealt with.
Chris333
  • Tue May 13, 2008 1:11 am
  • : 2
  • : 0
  • Flag
Bmore,

The Catholic Church is adamant on its position on homosexuality, as a Catholic you should ask your Priest if you have an opinion. Infallibility is loosely defined as that which has been explicitly stated by the RCC as so, and what Tradition has constantly maintained. I am sure the RCC does not have an official doctrine that was "infallibly" called that addresses eating babies, but the RCC position is clear on it, and to go against the RCC position is to go against the RCC.

ifeelfine,

"I am not trying to give the Bible a bad name - you all are doing a pretty good job of that and don't really need my help."

An unproven statement, based upon personal perspective.

"with over 3000 denominations, you choose to say only those that don't believe all homosexuality is a sin are not Christian? Hogwash."

Great, you know some "denominations" might say that multiple wives are right, some might say that pedophilia is okay, others might say that killing adulterers is good. You are apealing to confusion. You must make an argument from the Bible, just saying "some people agree with me" does not mean anything, some people agree against you, others agree on absurd things.

"I've always maintained that the Bible shows homosexuality is sinful only in the same way that heterosexuality is sinful (lustful relationships, non-committed, not of the spirit, unequal, etc)."

Then why on earth does the Bible address "unloving" homosexual relationships directly, and not "unloving" heterosexual relationships? Why not an ambiguous, "let your relationships be loving"? Why doesn't Paul say, "Let each man have one husband or wife, and each woman a husband or wife" instead of the exclusive terms he uses? How do you interpret the "husband being the head of the wife"? Why isn't it, "the dominant partner being the head of the not-dominant partner"? The text simply does not support this position.
jar1961
  • Mon May 12, 2008 10:48 pm
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
IFEELFINE: Listen, I know you are trying to provide some sense of biblical knowledge but throughout Scripture God made clear His dissatisfaction with slavery....you really need to study the Hebrew and greek to understand the more precise meaning. God never took pleasure in the institute of slavery
ifeelfine72
  • Mon May 12, 2008 9:07 pm
  • : 0
  • : 2
  • Flag
jar: Abomination back in the OT (esp. Lev.) referred not to a "hateful thing" but rather to customary Jewish traditions. Hence, homosexuality is no more sinful than eating shellfish according to Lev.
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here