In Georgia, a bill to cut all ties with the American Library Association is advancing

[JaySecrets]

I honestly don't give a shit what they will or won't do if their kid is gay... I find it funny when it happens.

But yah.... Don't want your child exposed, then keep them at home. That's the only answer.

If you don't accept what your child says about themselves as an adult, why should they accept what you tell them?

Who said anything about the child as an adult? Aside from the fact... Okay, I get what you're saying. You're saying that if a parent doesn't approve or affirm a child's homosexuality once that child is an adult, that the child doesn't need to pay attention to what the parent says? This goes to the whole whole culture war aspect of things that I'm not going to get into on here. But suffice it to say that not affirming what a person does is not a reason to say that the one who isn't affirming the actions is hateful or whatever. They may have many reasons for what they do. Don't assume motives. And no one knows the parents motives better than the child, just like no one knows the child's heart better than the parents.

As for the other part of your statement, I believe I did just say that there is an exposure to things that the family may not agree with. It's just a controlled exposure that is measured by the ability to apply values. Libraries and schools and other entities that tax dollars pay for have no right to impose themselves in the middle of that conversation between the parents and the child.

 

[ll74]

Who said anything about the child as an adult? Aside from the fact... Okay, I get what you're saying. You're saying that if a parent doesn't approve or affirm a child's homosexuality once that child is an adult, that the child doesn't need to pay attention to what the parent says? This goes to the whole whole culture war aspect of things that I'm not going to get into on here. But suffice it to say that not affirming what a person does is not a reason to say that the one who isn't affirming the actions is hateful or whatever. They may have many reasons for what they do. Don't assume motives. And no one knows the parents motives better than the child, just like no one knows the child's heart better than the parents.

As for the other part of your statement, I believe I did just say that there is an exposure to things that the family may not agree with. It's just a controlled exposure that is measured by the ability to apply values. Libraries and schools and other entities that tax dollars pay for have no right to impose themselves in the middle of that conversation between the parents and the child.

Libraries provide books. Schools teach things.

Homeschool if you want. Banning books is fascism.

 

[Handeguy]

I wish that you could try to see the opposing view and see it reasonably so you could understand why paranormal rights and parental control over what their children are exposed to is important. But either you don't have kids, or you don't respect the beliefs of other parents with their kids enough to be willing to say that if my child is one I want exposed to Timmy has two mommies or Jenny has two daddies, that I will buy the book myself and not expect that parent to have their child exposed to it. It's about caring more about the other person than you and understanding that they care more about the protecting of their child and their child's values and morals than they are concerned about your sensibilities about why some book that doesn't need to be in the library in order for you to have access to it should be there.

I do have children and I care very much about all parents being able to protect their children, so both of your assumptions are entirely off base. But I also believe a few additional things. One is that along with rights, parents have responsibilities. I think we both agree on that. These responsibilities include monitoring what content those children consume, again, somethng we both agree on. Where we part ways is in seeing that that responsibility does not create the right to bar other parents and students from being able to access material that the larger community finds acceptable. Of course, there are things ALL of us do not want in school libraries, and I recognize that. Likewise, there are things that ALL of us would probably find acceptable. But where do we draw the line? And who gets to draw it? School libraries are community institutions. They do not belong solely to the parents of the children attending that school. As such, they ought not to be governed by an individual parent. If a single black or Muslim parent wished to have all books with any white or non-Muslim characters or reference to white or non-Muslim people removed from your local school libraries, would their supposed parental right to do so trump all? I think not, though I also recognize that you would disagree if you stood by your stated principles. It seems we would have to agree to disagree on that point.

One of the things I have learned as an adult who has interacted with many children is that divorce hurts kids and their learning. Poverty hurts kids and their learning. Parental substance abuse hurts kids and their learning. Hunger and food insecurity hurt kids and their learning. Inadequate access to basic health care hurts kids and their learning. Physical and emotional abuse and neglect hurt kids and their learning. Cell phone addiciton hurts kids and their learning. Rarely, if ever, does reading a book in a public school library hurt a kid and their learning. So, if you are truly serious about protecting kids and their learning, focusing on removing books featuring content related to minority history, civil rights, and LGBTQ issues isn't really going to give you a whole lot of bang for your buck.

 

[JaySecrets]

I do have children and I care very much about all parents being able to protect their children, so both of your assumptions are entirely off base. But I also believe a few additional things. One is that along with rights, parents have responsibilities. I think we both agree on that. These responsibilities include monitoring what content those children consume, again, somethng we both agree on. Where we part ways is in seeing that that responsibility does not create the right to bar other parents and students from being able to access material that the larger community finds acceptable. Of course, there are things ALL of us do not want in school libraries, and I recognize that. Likewise, there are things that ALL of us would probably find acceptable. But where do we draw the line? And who gets to draw it? School libraries are community institutions. They do not belong solely to the parents of the children attending that school. As such, they ought not to be governed by an individual parent. If a single black or Muslim parent wished to have all books with any white or non-Muslim characters or reference to white or non-Muslim people removed from your local school libraries, would their supposed parental right to do so trump all? I think not, though I also recognize that you would disagree if you stood by your stated principles. It seems we would have to agree to disagree on that point.

One of the things I have learned as an adult who has interacted with many children is that divorce hurts kids and their learning. Poverty hurts kids and their learning. Parental substance abuse hurts kids and their learning. Hunger and food insecurity hurt kids and their learning. Inadequate access to basic health care hurts kids and their learning. Physical and emotional abuse and neglect hurt kids and their learning. Cell phone addiciton hurts kids and their learning. Rarely, if ever, does reading a book in a public school library hurt a kid and their learning. So, if you are truly serious about protecting kids and their learning, focusing on removing books featuring content related to minority history, civil rights, and LGBTQ issues isn't really going to give you a whole lot of bang for your buck.

So you think it's perfectly innocent for the library to have a drag queen story time in the library that subjects young children to the idea of transsexual and cross-dressing. So you think it's a great idea to have a child who doesn't even understand what sexuality is to have discussions in children's books about homosexuality. You think it's a great idea to have children of parents who happen to be Christian to have to be if they go into the library subjected to lbgt stuff all over the walls. You think that it's okay for children who are learning American history at a basic level to be subjected to views of American history that come out of a people's history of o America, the most provably flawed and The most convoluted view of American History ever to be put in a book, yet considered a valid textbook in both public schools and in libraries today. You think all this is okay? I think not. I believe that is sick. It is perverted and it is anti-American. If you think hating America and teaching children to do so. You think sexualizing children at Young ages is okay. If you think all this is okay and you think it's just a matter of presenting another viewpoint... You have a very warped view of.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So you think it's perfectly innocent for the library to have a drag queen story time in the library that subjects young children to the idea of transsexual and cross-dressing. So you think it's a great idea to have a child who doesn't even understand what sexuality is to have discussions in children's books about homosexuality. You think it's a great idea to have children of parents who happen to be Christian to have to be if they go into the library subjected to lbgt stuff all over the walls. You think that it's okay for children who are learning American history at a basic level to be subjected to views of American history that come out of a people's history of o America, the most provably flawed and The most convoluted view of American History ever to be put in a book, yet considered a valid textbook in both public schools and in libraries today. You think all this is okay? I think not. I believe that is sick. It is perverted and it is anti-American. If you think hating America and teaching children to do so. You think sexualizing children at Young ages is okay. If you think all this is okay and you think it's just a matter of presenting another viewpoint... You have a very warped view of.

If you don't like it, don't bring your kid to a library during that 30-60 minutes.
I'm sorry you don't understand how history works. I encourage you to educate yourself.

 

[JaySecrets]

If you don't like it, don't bring your kid to a library during that 30-60 minutes.
I'm sorry you don't understand how history works. I encourage you to educate yourself.

No that is exactly the wrong answer. If you want that kind of smut put into your child's eyes and your child's mind, You create a special event where you and your child and whatever parents want their child subjected to sexuality at a young age can bring your children to that event. You don't use a public space paid for by tax dollars to sexualize children. That's child abuse. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, those who are having these events that are highly sexual in nature for children should be put in prison for exposing a minor to explicit material.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No that is exactly the wrong answer. If you want that kind of smut put into your child's eyes and your child's mind, You create a special event where you and your child and whatever parents want their child subjected to sexuality at a young age can bring your children to that event. You don't use a public space paid for by tax dollars to sexualize children. That's child abuse. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, those who are having these events that are highly sexual in nature for children should be put in prison for exposing a minor to explicit material.

If you think a man dressed in women’s clothes is sexual that’s something you need to accept.

Parents know better than the government. So if a parent wants to take their kid to that why do you have the ability to take away their parental rights? Do you know better than that parent?

 

[JaySecrets]

If you think a man dressed in women’s clothes is sexual that’s something you need to accept.

Parents know better than the government. So if a parent wants to take their kid to that why do you have the ability to take away their parental rights? Do you know better than that parent?

I'm not saying a parent can't take their kid to that. I'm saying that event shouldn't be held in a public library in a public space like that paid by tax dollars. I'm saying that you don't use tax dollars to pay for things like that. If a parent wants to take their child to that then they can have a private event in which they do that and no one's going to say they can't. I think that parent is foolish but that's on them.

The library association, And the teachers associations, several government agencies, these have all openly stated that their goal is to undermine traditional Family values. The second you state that that is your goal is the second you lose validity for doing anything in the public sector under tax dollars. You don't get to take tax dollars from people who are conservatives or hold traditional Family values, And then turn around and spit in their face and the values they're trying to instill in their children. It's not your role to decide. Those values don't fit modern society and it's mores.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The argument is not so much about whether or not the kids can access the material... It's an online world, of course they can. It was an argument about the fact that that library association is happy to expose those children to that material without consideration of what the parents believe because they believe they know better than the parents.

LOL so it's the Librarian's...those mean nasty deceptive people who are out to destroy the worlds....Let just forget the fact that books such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" are readily available for free, online...

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Interesting that unable to defend your position, you go to making really disgusting statements.

Show me where I haven't defended my position.

You are proving yourselves to be nothing more than ones who will make jokes about pedophilia. And that is showing your character.

To recap, man displays penis, other man touches penis, man says you shouldn't have touched my penis....I agree with first man...so far I see no Pedophilia. That came from you.

 

[ll74]

No that is exactly the wrong answer. If you want that kind of smut put into your child's eyes and your child's mind, You create a special event where you and your child and whatever parents want their child subjected to sexuality at a young age can bring your children to that event. You don't use a public space paid for by tax dollars to sexualize children. That's child abuse. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, those who are having these events that are highly sexual in nature for children should be put in prison for exposing a minor to explicit material.

Drag queens reading to kids is not a sexual thing and certainly not smut

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I'm not saying a parent can't take their kid to that. I'm saying that event shouldn't be held in a public library in a public space like that paid by tax dollars. I'm saying that you don't use tax dollars to pay for things like that. If a parent wants to take their child to that then they can have a private event in which they do that and no one's going to say they can't. I think that parent is foolish but that's on them.

The library association, And the teachers associations, several government agencies, these have all openly stated that their goal is to undermine traditional Family values. The second you state that that is your goal is the second you lose validity for doing anything in the public sector under tax dollars. You don't get to take tax dollars from people who are conservatives or hold traditional Family values, And then turn around and spit in their face and the values they're trying to instill in their children. It's not your role to decide. Those values don't fit modern society and it's mores.

To restate the obvious, your rights end where others begin. You really seem to have a problem understanding you and your views don't dictate other peoples views.

If they did, I would have people like you shot, hung and pissed on, and not necessarily in that order.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I'm not saying a parent can't take their kid to that. I'm saying that event shouldn't be held in a public library in a public space like that paid by tax dollars. I'm saying that you don't use tax dollars to pay for things like that. If a parent wants to take their child to that then they can have a private event in which they do that and no one's going to say they can't. I think that parent is foolish but that's on them.

The library association, And the teachers associations, several government agencies, these have all openly stated that their goal is to undermine traditional Family values. The second you state that that is your goal is the second you lose validity for doing anything in the public sector under tax dollars. You don't get to take tax dollars from people who are conservatives or hold traditional Family values, And then turn around and spit in their face and the values they're trying to instill in their children. It's not your role to decide. Those values don't fit modern society and it's mores.

You were wrong about FEMA and you’re wrong about taxes. The parents who want to attend those events pay taxes, and if they want to use a public space to do that they can. You didn’t answer the question, why do you think you and the government know better than the parents who want to attend these events?

None of those groups have said that, only you are saying that parents shouldn’t have any rights and that you know better than parents.

 

[JaySecrets]

LOL so it's the Librarian's...those mean nasty deceptive people who are out to destroy the worlds....Let just forget the fact that books such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" are readily available for free, online...

How libraries came to be sanctuaries for LGBTQ kids?


This work is a direct outgrowth of advocacy by McConnell and a small group of colleagues who, in the immediate aftermath of the Stonewall uprising in June 1969, organized the American Library Association as the first professional group with a queer committee formally advocating for LGBTQ rights.Jun 29, 2022

The American Library Association (ALA) sponsors the Stonewall Book Awards, which recognize books with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered themes. The awards are sponsored by the ALA's Rainbow Round Table, formerly the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table (GLBTRT).

The Stonewall Book Awards include awards for children's and young adult, non-fiction, and literature. The awards also include the Rainbow Round Table Award for Political Activism, the Larry Romans Mentorship Award, and the Newlen-Symons Award.

The ALA also supports LGBTQIA+ literature through the Rainbow Book List and the Over the Rainbow Book List.

https://texasscorecard.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/tx-logo.svg
https://texasscorecard.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Icon-Search.svg
FEDERAL

Library Conference Pushes Critical Race Theory​

The event features “How to Be an Antiracist” author Ibram X. Kendi.
Katy Marshall | January 10, 2023
https://texasscorecard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/jamie-taylor-9C3TMXwQjQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg

The American Library Association (ALA) will feature critical race theory (CRT) proponent Ibram X. Kendi as the opening speaker at their annual LibLearnX conference later this month.
The ALA is a national organization with state-level branches that claims to provide “leadership for the development, promotion and improvement of library and information services.” The group came under fire earlier this year for defending school libraries that kept sexually explicit books on their shelves.
The organization’s upcoming conference, LibLearnX: The Library Learning Experience (LLX), offers workshops for library employees at all levels, including school librarians. The ALA will hold this year’s conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, from January 27 to January 30.
Kendi and Nic Stone, the authors of “How to Be a (Young) Antiracist,” will open the conference with a talk focused on how their book encourages teenagers to “build a more equitable world.” The work is a “reimagining” of Kendi’s “How to Be an Antiracist,” which teaches that people are either inherently oppressed or privileged based on the color of their skin.
Kendi promoted the book as a way for teenagers to learn about “antiracism,” an idea based on CRT principles, and become activists.
“In this moment, teenagers of all backgrounds are vulnerable to all sorts of racial pressures, from teens of color reporting multiple instances of racism per day, to White teens being routinely targeted online by White supremacists,” said Kendi. “Teens are being told to ‘not be racist.’ But they need a more affirmative and active vision if we want them to leave the nest champions of equity and justice for all.”
CRT proponents claim that racism is ingrained in all American institutions and systems because they are based on “white privilege” and that people identified as belonging to certain groups should be treated differently to make up for past injustices.
The LLX conference also features sessions promoting CRT, including “How to Start Conversations about Justice and Equity,” “Intersectional Justice in Libraries,” and “Decolonizing Library Shelves through the Rise of Indigenous Children’s Authors.”
After citizens across the country raised concerns over explicit and inappropriate materials in libraries, the ALA encouraged librarians to “fight censorship” and keep controversial books on their shelves, including at school libraries.

In fulfilling their responsibilities, public schools must not only provide knowledge of many subject areas and essential skills, but must also educate students on core American values such as fairness, equality, justice, respect for others, and the right to dissent.

Several conservative lawmakers have filed legislation this session calling for restrictions on children’s access to explicit materials.


This is not a group I would trust with anybody's children. They most certainly are not agenda-free. And they most certainly are not simply seeking to provide resources. And their founding they begin as an organization to use libraries to promote the lgbt lifestyle. They are actively pushing critical race theory, A theory that literally says that if you are white you are inherently racist, And that pushes concepts like intersectionality, A disgusting concept that says if a person has certain traits blended in they have no chance of making it because they don't have a chance in America. This is a horrible liberal corrupt organization that has as its core the goal of social engineering of children. Tax dollars have no business going to them. They need to be kicked out of every library in the country.

 

[JaySecrets]

You were wrong about FEMA and you’re wrong about taxes. The parents who want to attend those events pay taxes, and if they want to use a public space to do that they can. You didn’t answer the question, why do you think you and the government know better than the parents who want to attend these events?

None of those groups have said that, only you are saying that parents shouldn’t have any rights and that you know better than parents.

It's not offensive not to have those events in a library. Nobody is saying there was no drag queen story Time. I am offended.. or at least no normal sane human being would say that. If they want drag queen story time, they can sponsor that event in a different space that tax dollars didn't pay for and people that oppose those events are not going to say anything because we don't care what you do in your private space.

However, there are many in fact, the great majority of the public who openly state that they do not want these drags Queen story times. They find it offensive that libraries are pushing this on children. And that is actually a sane response. They don't want their children sexualized or exposed to content. That talks about sexuality when they're 4, 5, 6 years old. The parents rights issue here falls on the side of my child should not be able to go into a library at any time and be exposed to content. That is what is considered morally wrong.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

How libraries came to be sanctuaries for LGBTQ kids?

Let's cut to the chase for a moment. You seem to think this is a debate, that at some point I will agree with you. It isn't. I think you and your kind are a blight on society, there is nothing you can say, unless it is backed by evidence, that I will even consider.

All I am doing in replying to your bullshit is calling out the hypocrisy of your views. I and other have just as much right to have our views and choices as you have yours, but that is where it ends. If we accept government's spending, by our choice of candidates elected then that is how the money will be spent.

Don't like the way tax dollars are spent, get people who will agree to spend them how you think they should be spent. Don't come here and try and convince me, or anyone else, that your views are the only correct ones, because your sky god says they are.

I tolerate religion, because society accepts it, and government has said my rights end where your's begin. That is the only reason. Religion doesn't automatically be the rule of the land, because some piece of fiction cobbled together a couple thousand years ago, says so. If I had my way, the first book I'd ban would be the King James Bible. Then I'd start working my way down the list....be thankful your rights are protected, and quit trying to infringe upon mine!

 

[ll74]

Let's cut to the chase for a moment. You seem to think this is a debate, that at some point I will agree with you. It isn't. I think you and your kind are a blight on society, there is nothing you can say, unless it is backed by evidence, that I will even consider.

All I am doing in replying to your bullshit is calling out the hypocrisy of your views. I and other have just as much right to have our views and choices as you have yours, but that is where it ends. If we accept government's spending, by our choice of candidates elected then that is how the money will be spent.

Don't like the way tax dollars are spent, get people who will agree to spend them how you think they should be spent. Don't come here and try and convince me, or anyone else, that your views are the only correct ones, because your sky god says they are.

I tolerate religion, because society accepts it, and government has said my rights end where your's begin. That is the only reason. Religion doesn't automatically be the rule of the land, because some piece of fiction cobbled together a couple thousand years ago, says so. If I had my way, the first book I'd ban would be the King James Bible. Then I'd start working my way down the list....be thankful your rights are protected, and quit trying to infringe upon mine!

Yah, I was going to echo this sentiment..... First books I would ban would be any books discussing religion or promoting religious indoctrination. (Creation theory anyone??)

 

[BlueEyes1969]

If we were talking about books that opposed the views of the state, I would agree. If we were talking about books that presented religious views that some would disagree with, I would agree. But even that is prefaced in that in Germany, the libraries or the public sources of books were the only places you could get some of these books. In today's world they are so available that if we were to shut down every library you could still access every book out there. No one is saying to cut that access out.

What they are saying is that when things are morally offensive to enough of the community those things should not be placed where they can be easily put into the hands of children whose parents do not want them exposed to those things they consider morally offensive. Again, if you want your children to have access to LBGT material or if you want your children to be exposed to pro-abortion material (really not sure why anyone would want that) or if you want your children exposed to things that have graphic sexual content (again, I'm not sure why you would do that) or if you want your children exposed to things that present an anti-American point of view that says that America is just a horrible place that is nothing but racist and nasty and deserves to be destroyed.... You can go out and get those resources and make them available to your children in your home. You can even go out and create a private library of these resources, pool together with others of like mind and do the same thing and then make it available to all your kids a more affordable rate. And nobody is going to stop you or say you can't. But when it's public tax dollars in play, there's a library association that has openly spoken against parental rights and traditional values. When it's a library system who is having drag shows for children when that child is just figuring out what life is about and doesn't need to be exposed to these conversations about sexuality. When it's them absolutely the parents have the right and should have the right to cut off those libraries from doing those things and making those things available. It's their children, not the libraries or the states or the teachers or anybody else. I know I'm redundant on this but it bears repeating again and again and again... It's about parental rights because those children belong to them. Period. Full stop.

If YOU don't want your children to read something offensive, YOU have that right. But you do NOT have the right to tell me what I can read and/or find in a public or school library. Germany not only cleansed the libraries and schools of books that challenged Nazi political views, real history, faith perspectives, etc. - they burned them and arrested and imprisoned authors and readers. This is not a parental rights issue. It IS a 1st amendment right and if this countrys' freedoms are too much for you, find a country where a fascist government will "cleanse" the libraries, tell you what you can believe, decide what history is "palatable" for you and your children, and will curtail freedoms the rest of us cherish. Period. Full stop.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Have you ever researched and seen the comparison of the number of claimed (not real Christians as defined by Scripture, by the way) Christians as opposed to non Christians found to be abusing children? The non Christians are far more in number. But you see things through your lense of bias and ignore facts.

What is a "real Christian as defined by Scripture"?

 

[JaySecrets]

What is a "real Christian as defined by Scripture"?

Christianity, as defined by scripture, A Christian is one who has recognized their state as a sinner, who has realized that they can do nothing to save themselves, who has come to understand their condemned State before a perfect and holy God, who has recognized Jesus Christ as God come in flesh who lived the perfect life they couldn't live and then died to pay for the penalty for their sins and rose from the dead on the third day be their victory over death. They are those who have put their complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior, not adding works or dependents on self or any religious organization to what Jesus already finished. They rely on Jesus to keep them, And they understand that they are accountable to their God for how they live in this world. That is a Christian according to biblical standards. I dare say once you start applying that you start finding out that the pool of people that you keep attributing Christian behavior to when they are not Christian begins to shrink significantly.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Christianity, as defined by scripture, A Christian is one who has recognized their state as a sinner, who has realized that they can do nothing to save themselves, who has come to understand their condemned State before a perfect and holy God, who has recognized Jesus Christ as God come in flesh who lived the perfect life they couldn't live and then died to pay for the penalty for their sins and rose from the dead on the third day be their victory over death. They are those who have put their complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior, not adding works or dependents on self or any religious organization to what Jesus already finished. They rely on Jesus to keep them, And they understand that they are accountable to their God for how they live in this world. That is a Christian according to biblical standards. I dare say once you start applying that you start finding out that the pool of people that you keep attributing Christian behavior to when they are not Christian begins to shrink significantly.

Are Catholic priests Christians?

 

[JaySecrets]

Are Catholic priests Christians?

Catholic priests and Catholicism has never had anything to do with true Christianity. Catholicism was always a pagan system with Christian terminology attached to it. In fact, the history of the Catholic church is that there were a bunch of Christians who would not buy into the pagan system just because the Christian labels had been slapped on, And the Catholic killed them just like the Roman empire had been killing Christians all along. When it comes to the theology of the Catholic church, there is very little in it that has anything to do with true biblical Christianity.

 

[ll74]

Lol

 

[icanhelp1]

So you think it's perfectly innocent for the library to have a drag queen story time in the library that subjects young children to the idea of transsexual and cross-dressing. So you think it's a great idea to have a child who doesn't even understand what sexuality is to have discussions in children's books about homosexuality. You think it's a great idea to have children of parents who happen to be Christian to have to be if they go into the library subjected to lbgt stuff all over the walls. You think that it's okay for children who are learning American history at a basic level to be subjected to views of American history that come out of a people's history of o America, the most provably flawed and The most convoluted view of American History ever to be put in a book, yet considered a valid textbook in both public schools and in libraries today. You think all this is okay? I think not. I believe that is sick. It is perverted and it is anti-American. If you think hating America and teaching children to do so. You think sexualizing children at Young ages is okay. If you think all this is okay and you think it's just a matter of presenting another viewpoint... You have a very warped view of.

Your points are well taken. Having raised two girls myself I can vouch that trash exist out there. I’m for school vouchers, a choice for a school that fits your family values. Funding should follow the child giving parents more flexibility to place a child in a school of their choice. Most parochial and charter schools have in most cases higher standards. No flip flops, no short shorts, more of uniform dress code that places a child’s mental status as part of a larger organization and minimize the individual entitlement attitude and eradicate this self importance malignancy . Discipline is lacking in many urban communities, learning suffers as is evident in the Baltimore school system. IMHO

 

[icanhelp1]

Catholic priests and Catholicism has never had anything to do with true Christianity. Catholicism was always a pagan system with Christian terminology attached to it. In fact, the history of the Catholic church is that there were a bunch of Christians who would not buy into the pagan system just because the Christian labels had been slapped on, And the Catholic killed them just like the Roman empire had been killing Christians all along. When it comes to the theology of the Catholic church, there is very little in it that has anything to do with true biblical Christianity.

Roman Catholicism traces its history to Jesus during the period of Roman occupation in the early 30s of the Common Era. Over a period of years after Jesus' life and death his followers spread out across the world to form a “universal” (Greek, katholikos) church with the bishop of Rome holding primacy.