A children's book about two male penguins that hatched a chick together was pulled from school library shelves earlier this month in Loudoun County, Va., for its pro-gay message.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Society > Homosexuality
Schools Pull Children's Book About Same-Sex Penguin Couple
By
Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Feb. 19 2008 02:26 PM EST
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Most Commented Articles
La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'
Obama Prying Loose Evangelicals from Republicans
Federal Marriage Amendment Re-introduced in Senate
Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin
Anglican Head Sees Risks in Conservative Proposals
PCUSA Assembly Approves Deleting Gay Clergy Ban
Arizona Puts Marriage Amendment on Ballot - Again
Featured Advertiser Links
Comments
Okay, that post worked, now I shall try another. I think I was going to respond to your belief that it's okay to tell a child his/her "very nature" is unacceptable. The whole idea stems from the notion that same-sex attraction is a "vice" (like pedophilia, or perhaps kleptomania), and you cannot seem to find an analogy that doesn't involve a victim, so there is no valid analogy to justify maintaining the idea that acting on such attractions would be sinful.
Furthermore, many parents have indeed told their children exactly that, and there are quite a few who wish every day that they could take it back and mend their relationships both with their kids and with God rather than lose both.
Actually, it was not conveniently on the last try. The post you read below was actually the third try after I gave up trying to stay on the subject. It happened on other articles too. In fact, this post right here is my third try once again.
NoWire,
Your point is? It doesn't change what it was.
SheQuon,
Looks like it worked! And conveniently on the last time when you had forgotten what you were going to say and not going to bother writing any response, only to tell us that you really did have a response! Glad to see it worked though.
Update: As of March 5, the book has been returned to the shelves, and it turns out the "unnamed parent" (Sherrie Sawyer) didn't even have a child in the school where it all started. (She's a TA in the district.) Also, the superintendent was stripped of the authority to unilaterally remove books.
I tried to post another response several times since 3/2, and got an error message every time. Now I've completely forgotten what I was going to say. This will be my last attempt, and if it works at least you'll know I wasn't not posting because I had no reply.
shequon,
Legally, there is a difference between stealing and homosexuality. Just as there is a difference between adultery and murder. But before God, they are all still sin. I am not here to make homosexuality a crime. I am here to warn those who involve themselves in that practice that it is a sin that will separate them from God.
I would also agree that much of how a child or young adult acts is because of how the parent raises (or fails to raise) their child. Many parents aren't actively involved in their childrens lives. And because of that, their children will get their views of life and morals elsewhere. And it's usually not the best of places either. And sometimes the parents are involved, but their morals and ethics are so askew that it is passed on to their kids.
But, to reiterate what I said earlier, just because something is not illegal, doesn't mean it's not a sin. What God calls a warning, people without a conscience call judging.
Finally you seem to think that we cannot tell a person their "very nature" is unnacceptable. I am sorry but I disagree. If someone is a pedophile by their very nature, then I will have to tell them that they can either never act on their urges, or else change. (Please, for the love of all that is good, do not tell me I am equating pedophilia with homosexuality) However, I think you were a bit tricky in your usage of the term "very nature", this is a very broad term and could be applied to a lot of things, and I do not believe that people must have their lives determined by some unalterable nature. Rather, I believe that we all have a sinful nature and that through the grace of God we can overcome anything and conform ourselves to the image of Christ. Here is the bottom line, if the anti-gay crowd said, "Gays are evil, THEY SHOULD DIE" And they said so in the name of Christ, then I would say they were gravely mistaken. First of all, gays are not evil, what they do is wrong, secondly to say a person should die for such a behavior is against the message of Christ. However if an "anti-gay" person says, "Homosexuality is a sinful behavior, and is against the purpose God has" Then there is nothing wrong with it.
SheQuon,
I can't believe, that after all of that explaining, you now made the crazy jump to say I am equating homosexuality with stealing too! I said they are DIFFERENT, the word different means not the same, equating means that you are calling two things the same. For that matter, I did say they were both wrong, but not in the same way. I do not consider a rapist and a thief the same. If this concept makes sense to you, then there should be no problem.
Now, the criminal distinguishment between these concepts means nothing to me. Tomorrow, we could all say that rape is 100% A-OK and I would still say it is wrong.
Also, I did not say that kids could be rotten without their parents help, but now that you mention it sure they can be (though the vast majority of the time it is directly the parents fault).
You said,
"I reject your claim that the anti-gay "Christians" opposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with vicious acts like this. Kids hear and pick up on things quite easily. "
Unfortunately for your argument, I did not say that or even imply it. Sure, maybe if I say, "Homosexuality is bad" some kid will think "Bad equals 'I MUST KILL'" But it would be stupid to say that I am the cause of that. I could say, "Rape is bad" and then some kid might think, "I must kill all rapists!!!!" But what I said did not cause that. Saying something is wrong, does not mean we have to kill people. You might find this surprising, I know, I was taken aback whenever I found out that teenagers weren't killing thieves and drunk people, it is really amazing that they could separate the two, but against all odds they did it. (sorry if the sarcasm was a bit heavy, it just comes out when you have to repeat yourself endlessly)
If homosexuals could have their way, they would make it a crime to speak out against homosexuality. Just stating a fact.
"Gay rights activist would make it a crime to say homosexuality is a sin. Quit griping."
Not a crime--just a sin. Unless you want to harass people with speech outside funerals, then yes, your keister should be hauled to the klink..
I wasn't griping, I was stating a fact. (Sorry, I know facts are unpopular here.)
Gay rights activist would make it a crime to say homosexuality is a sin. Quit griping.
Stealing is a sin. Murder is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. In God's eyes none is worse than another. Jesus died for ALL sins, and His blood can cover ALL sins. For God, it's as easy to forgive a murderer as it is to forgive a liar. I know that probably rubs you the wrong way. But that's why you're not God. If you were, we'd all be dead.
What is hard, though, is for mankind to forgive murder. That's where the problem lies. Mankind shows it's self-centeredness by witholding forgiveness. But, by witholding forgiveness, doesn't affect the perpetrator. But it will eat away at the one who refuses to forgive.
The point is, Chris, you keep using rape, and now stealing, in your analogies. These things are crimes. But that should not surprise me since anti-gay "Christians" would make homosexuality a crime if they could. (In fact they were quite upset when it was decriminalized by the supreme court in 2003.) Then you wonder why people say you have blood on your hands when a KID decides this gay classmate doesn't deserve to live. Now we know kids can be rotten with no help from adults, but something tells me he didn't pull this idea out of the clear blue sky.
I reject your claim that the anti-gay "Christians" opposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with vicious acts like this. Kids hear and pick up on things quite easily. You can say you'd be "loving" your kid by telling him his very nature is "unacceptable," but you'd be wrong. And you're leaving the possiblity wide open for some kid who's been hearing "unacceptable" all his life to act out on another kid exhibiting "unacceptable" behavior.
Shequon,
Great, I am supposing that you believe I was equating rape with homosexuality? Well, now everyone knows you don't know what you are talking about. Rape and homosexuality are not the same, just like rape and murder are not the same, just like rape and stealing are not the same, I never said they were the same, and you made the extreme leap to saying I did (or implied it), in a sarcastic way nonetheless. I do believe homosexuality is inherently wrong, but not the same way as rape, thank you for making me waste all of this space to explain the position that would be clear to anyone who was not consumed with an agenda...
On to the actual subject,
You then said:
"So in other words, it's perfectly okay to make it socially unacceptable, and then wash your hands of any influence on a kid takes who decides to blow an "unacceptable" kid's head off, because you "love the sinner"."
No in other words not that, if I told children that rape is wrong and it is a sin, and some stupid kid decided to go "blow the head off" of some rapist, then it is not my fault, it is because of some other problem that is deeply seated in that individual, which needs to be dealt with. I am consistent in my message that we are to oppose sin but love the sinner. You also seem to have a problem with this, I cannot fathom why, it seems incredibly cheap of you to say something like that. For instance, suppose there was a kid who decided to steal a candy bar, by your way of thinking I should tell that kid, "Look son, I hate you, I cannot just hate what you did, I hate you" or you would have me say, "Look son, I love you, and I love what you did, because I cannot dissassociate the two (because I am brain dead)" You completely eliminate the completely rational thing to do, which is tell the kid, "Look son, what you did was wrong and unnacceptable, I "hate" stealing, but I do not hate you, and I desire the right way for you" But for you, this is unnacceptable, we must hate people or love them and every thing about them.
In short, you did not address what I posted, and you tried to refute a straw man with something that just doesn't make sense anyways.
No Chris I read your post and understood it, about how "making a wrong behavior socially acceptable is not the correct answer" Then you go on to make a rape analogy while stressing you're not equating homosexuality with rape (right). So in other words, it's perfectly okay to make it socially unacceptable, and then wash your hands of any influence on a kid takes who decides to blow an "unacceptable" kid's head off, because you "love the sinner". You're right about the anger, but I'm not the blind one.
SheQuon,
I think you need to reread what I wrote, I didn't say what you quoted, and that is not related to it either. Are you possibly just blinded by your anger? Anyways, when you address what I actually said I can consider what you are saying, but right now, you are just fighting against a straw man that you built. It really has nothing to do with me. Go, reread my post again, make sure that it says "Chris333" at the top, and make sure that it is the post addressed to you.
Chris, I simply didn't see your comment or I would have addressed it. And now that I've read it I see it's the same old "Oh, we would NEVER encourage anyone to do harm, we're just saying this is wrong and anyone who disagrees, well, they're sinners." That kid had a hate inside that told him that boy didn't deserve to live. You may not pull the trigger, but your words help these people justify in their minds that a little vengeance is okay. Same with those funeral picketers...You denounce their actions, yet you use their same rhetoric (maybe minus the f-word). It's not that much of a leap, and it's been made many times.
Ifeelfine,
I read it, it does not apply to everyone. I cannot say, "In the name of Jesus I am going to kill all the people with the first name Jack," or, "In the name of Jesus, I am going to molest children," or, "In the name of Jesus, I can be gay and a Christian" You cannot just say, I am a Christian and that makes me immune, you have to 'be' a Christian.
Reread Matthew Chapter 7 verse 21
SheQuon,
Give me a break, I answered your post below, and you did not even comment on what I said. It just shows that you have no argument. I think you are having a lapse in logic...
Well, shequon,
We all know you were fishing for some sympathy for the gay rights agenda with your comment. I was just fishing for some sympathy for the Christian agenda. Unfortunately, neither of us will get what we want.
I feel bad for both the teenager killed and her killer. That is such a tragedy that teenagers are killing each other. Is there an article on her killing? I would like to read about what happened.
Wow--Prophet just takes a statement about a kid killing another kid and dismisses it with a "Hey, Christians die too." That says it all, man.
It is interesting that gay rights advocates, criticize removal of the book and reject claims that it is gay propoganda. The fact that they are criticizing speaks to nothing less than that of gay propoganda.
ifeelfine,
Never mind, I found it.
What did David call Jonathan? Did he call him his lover? His partner? No, David called him "brother". That there explains their relationship.
so ifeelf you are now throwing more mud at the wall trying to make it stick, It is transparent. There have been 3 studies just in the last 3 years that show one can change and that you are not "born that way" but of cousre you don't tke them literaly either because I think you would have to admit the errors of your ways. I wish I had the guts to throw out the parts of the Bible I didn't agree with but you see I can't, becasue all scripture is good for teaching and preaching and etc etc, not just the parts I want. I really feel sorry for you feelfine to be constantly in flux like that not knowing what to believe in because it might offend someone. For me it is easier to believe in the truth of what scripture says, it has not failed me yet. Gods blessing In Christ Tom
I don't doubt your quoting of scripture, but where does it say that?
Prophet - So you're saying your love for him was "greater" than that of any woman? The key word is "greater."
Tom - You certainly make a lot of leaps there - wow. I didn't say I thought the Bible wasn't true. I said its not literal (because its not). The Bible is true; it is the Word of God.
As for being gay or streight and changing orientation, that doesn't happen. You certainly don't know much about human sexuality, do you? There are varying degrees of heterosexuality and varying degrees of homosexuality.
I had a very close friend once. He was more than a brother. I loved him deeply. Our relationship was stronger than any that a woman could offer. And we both had a girlfriend. What's that mean? Well, although I had a girlfriend, there was no way that she would ever come between us. No girl would ever be able to tell me that he and I could not be friends. I'm not, nor was I then, gay. Nor was there even an inkling of homosexuality in our relationship. When he died, it tore me apart. I'll never have a friend like that again.
So ifeel and sheq you both just amaze me. Look even if David was gay, and he wasn't by the way. but if he was then you have to admit that you can change your sexual orientation becasue that would be exactly what David did as he did get married and did have kids with out another mention of any relationship with another man. So which is it? The differance from us who claim the Bible as true and those who don't (ifeel and sheq) Is that those of us who do have a love so deep for the lost that we are compelled to tell the truth of the Scripture, not twist it to satisfy someones lustful desires. we do this so they will hear and understand the requirements of walking in His Holiness and rightousness. It is ultimately your choice to accept His word or not. To accept Jesus as Lord or not. To turn away from your sin or not. to suffer the consequences,,,,or not which is only thru Jesus. Sorry to break your heart. we will be praying for ya. In Christ Tom
I speak the truth.
Chris - reread Matthew's fifth chapter.
Prophet - No, you speak opinion - not Truth. You know nothing about me and yet say I am not a Christian. That is not Truth - that is opinion - and a bad one at that.
". . . but I do not preach what I do not practice" - Right, your not gay, we get it.
I'm sure I am hypocritical in areas of my life but the things I've said here is not one of those areas. I don't understand what you mean by me needing to remove the plank from my eye. I'm sure I have one but again, not in this area of my life.
SheQuon,
I don't know why that 14 year old killed the other homosexual person. It was not because of faith in Christ. Christ was completely against violence. In any case, making a wrong behavior socially acceptable is not the correct answer. We wouldn't say just because some angry kid killed a rapist that we should therefore make children's books that show rapists in a positive light. (NO I am not equating homosexuality with rape, if anyone says I am they will be wrong, and everyone who views this site will know you are wrong and not capable of making a sound judgment: I have to say this because angry people always try to make the claim)
ifeelfine,
Here is the bottom line, the Bible never said David and Johnathon were gay, and even if they were (which they werent) they would have been guilty of sinning against God, and during the OT times deserving of death. You cannot side step this. It doesn't matter if they were gay, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong.
You said, "I guess I should thank you since Jesus Himself said mine is the kingdom of heaven because of what you said!"
Where did you get this idea, Jesus did not say, "The way to get to heaven is to be persecuted" He said it was based upon believing in Him and repenting of your sins. An unrepentant murderer could not say, "Oh since you "Christians" are condemning me I must be going to heaven now" It would be ridiculous.
Furthermore, Paul says to expel the unrepentant brother/sister (From the Church) until they repent (see 1 Corinthians) Prophet was not doing anything wrong.
feelfine,
I've been called worse. But I will still speak the Truth. If I let a man judge me, and control what I say and do, I would not be a son of God. The thing is, is that we both have planks in our eyes. I appear to be the only one concerned with taking mine out. You are most comfortable with yours. I am not sinless, but I do not preach what I do not practice.
Prophet - You are such a hypocrite. Take the plank out of your eye already! You know nothing about me and yet you've accused me more than once of not being a Christian. I guess I should thank you since Jesus Himself said mine is the kingdom of heaven because of what you said!
I've reread the context of Tom's statement and he made it sound like Jesus was talking specifically about David and Johnathan. Jesus clearly wasn't. He was talking in general. As for your strawman regarding David and Johnathon kissing - get a clue. The statement "their love for each other exceeded even that for a women" is what makes this relationship sound less then heterosexual. Stop throwing up strawmen.
shequon,
And yet, Christians die every week for their lifestyle, and no one even notices. So what are you complaining about?
This article was posted one week to the day (irony, anyone?) after a gay junior high student was shot dead in Oxnard CA. Maybe if his 14 year-old murderer had seen such a book he would have known being different was not such an abomination after all.
muggle,
Thanks for the link. I already had a DR Bible bookmarked on my computer for easy access. InGodITrust (who is a compatriot of TAJ) and I were having a discussion one day about a particular scripture and it's meaning. He made the comment that our Protestant Bible has distorted so much of the original scripture to fit our agenda, and that the Catholic Bible was the closest to the original transcript.
I found a Catholic Bible online, looked for the particular scripture that we were debating, and lo and behold it said the same thing word for word as my KJV Protestant Bible. I pointed it out to him. He don't like me no more.
Prophet, If this thread hasn't already died out ... here's a link to the Douay-Rheims Bible, that TAJ should be comfortable with. (For you, TAJ if you happen to see this ...) Like many of the others that popped up from Googling +Douay +Rheims +Online, this one has a search engine for easy keyword reference:
http://www.catholicfirst.com/bibledrv.cfm
Nothing should be unavailable to the tech-savvy Christian.
P.S. Anyone else reading this will find TONS of online bibles if you just Google them. Use keywords: +Bible, +VERSION, +online; where VERSION = {KJV | NKVJ | NIV | TNIV | NASV | NEB} or for Catholic, VERSION = {DRB | NAB | CRSV | JB}.
Tom,
No offense to TAJ, but a number of times we've asked him to look up scripture and he says he can't find his Bible. I'm not sure if that was true, since I'm not there, but if it is I find it rather odd. I hope he finds it, so he can truly search the scriptures.
Now ifeelfine I thought you knew the Scriptures, Thanks for telling him where it is Prophet, Here is another one for ya same place John 15:5-8 Jesus is talking--I am the vine, you are the branches. If a man remains in me and i in him, he will bear much fruit, apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers, such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned, If you remain in me and my Words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Fathers glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples." and it goes on. Do you understand these words? I wonder if you do. i''ll be praying for ya.
In Christ
Tom
I suppose that if I wrote an autobiography about myself, and commented about a stressful event that happened and I cried and my father and I kissed each other, that years down the road someone like you would misconstrue that to mean I was a incestuous homosexual. Only a pervert, when they hear the word "kiss", automatically thinks it means on the lips and in a romantic, sexual way. God save us from the carnally minded.
chicago,
It's amazing how you can take "David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded." and turn it into a homosexual encounter. A kiss was common among close friends in that culture...and usually was on the cheek. Jesus himself was kissed by Judas. Does that mean they were gay?
ifeelfine,
You say you're a Christian, and yet you do not know one of the greatest scriptures spoken by Jesus? The more I listen to you, the more I'm convinced that you're really not a Christian. EIther that, or you haven't been a Christian long. Or you just don't bother reading the Bible, which would not make you a very good Christian.
The scripture you're asking for is John 15:13.
Check out Second Timothy 2:15 while you're at it.
Tom: Where did Jesus say that?
ah chicago how innocent you are, did you not know that David married and had kids? Did you know that Jesus said that no greater love then this then one would die for their friend. They didn't have a homosexaulity relationship or have children together, but they would have died for each other. Man
In Christ
Tom
Perhaps the Bible should be pulled from Sunday school classes. After all, it depicts David and Jonathan having a love for each other that "surpasses the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26) and they fall on the ground, weep and kiss one another (1 Samuel 20:41)
That's pretty controversial compared to a couple of penguins.
...one of the "no"s below should be know...
Hey but did they write in the book that the zookeepers took the egg from another penguin couple?
I think this book does make mention to the two dads "hatching" an egg though, and that would give children the idea that two men can make an "egg" or "baby". Which is just not true.
Nowire,
As we already established, most kids do not know what sex is at this point in their lives, and it is better we keep it that way. It is still hard for most kids to understand how two men or women have children, and we shouldn't give them a lie that two men or women can "have" children. Most kids do not even know that they are adopted, let alone other kids no it until later. And at least for the ones that are adopted we can explain that they do have a mom and dad.
That's a lovely little paragraph, Chris, but nowhere in that book does it claim that the two penguins actually conceived Tango. There is no penguin sex in that book. Furthermore, most kids have at least one classmate who is adopted, and they don't freak out when they learn his/her parents didn't "have" him/her.
Nowire,
The fact of the matter is, two men cannot have children, we should not tell children a lie and say, "Hey son/daughter, two men/women can have children too" Rather we can say the truth that children only come from a relationship between a man and a woman. This is natural and right. The fact is, every single kid on planet earth has a biological mother and father, there is not one single person with two biological fathers or mothers. I don't know what you would tell your kids, but I am not going to fool mine into believing that kids can have two fathers or mothers, it just isn't true, in the biological sense.
"Right, and it is confusing enough for kids when they end up learning the truth."
First I've heard. Kids only have problems with the information if their parents do. In fact, I don't recall any such confusion myself, and my parents were quite prude.
Nowire,
Right, and it is confusing enough for kids when they end up learning the truth.
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Re: "Kids are going to get the idea that loving someone makes a child magically appear."
That's what kids think at ages 4-8 anyway! They don't learn about reproduction until later. Or are there some heterosexual animal books for preschoolers that go through the whole procedure?
Chris -
According to what I read, the zoo gave them an egg from another penguin. And if I remember my "penguinese" correctly, it is norm for both males and females to incubate eggs and care for the young.
GMG,
That is awesome! I just have to wonder how on earth did Roy and Silo have a baby? That is very confusing to me, did they steal an egg from some other couple? Kids are going to get the idea that loving someone makes a child magically appear.
NoWire -
Here's your sequel. "In 2005, Roy and Silo separated, after some six years of paired behavior, with Roy remaining single. Silo found another partner, a female called Scrappy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo
I agree Wilderness. This type of infiltration has been a tactic of satan for years. We can see the same indoctrination methods from the Islamic empire as well. They train their young to hate the Jews and Christians.
It's a very old tactic, it goes all the way back to The Garden. "Did God really say?"
The homosexual agenda is thoroughly demonic, seeking to create a Sodom and Gomorrah generation. They understand that it is very important to infiltrate every area of society, presenting the picture of a normal, but victimized person. One of their most diabolical schemes is to capture the minds of innocent children in an educational format, seducing, twisting, and molding their young minds to call evil good and good evil.
There should be a follow up book in which the penguins attend a three week reparative therapy program and emerge completely cured!