C
ColoradoIrish
Guest
Wait till they find out that Juliet was originally portrayed by a guy in dragWhen can we ban Romeo and Juliet being read in schools?
Wait till they find out that Juliet was originally portrayed by a guy in dragWhen can we ban Romeo and Juliet being read in schools?
Are you ok with Catcher in the Rye being read?How do we coexist if you make me read things I dont want to? Or make my children read things I don’t want them to? I disagree with you and I’m a lost cause. There comes a point where your intentions are pretty clear and it’s not about coexisting or being civil.
I believe it's perfectly reasonable for parents be allowed to opt-out. I state again that there is no educational reason that these books were being adopted by the school district. The fact that a Supreme Court justice seems to be implying that, no opt-out is reasonable and if you don't like it, move or send your kids to private school is problematic.I've said previously I'm ok with opt outs for things of sexual nature. This isn't it.
There comes a point where your intentions are pretty clear and it’s not about coexisting or being civil.
You can't be serious with this, after everything being pushed. The goal of the Republican party isn't to coexist or be civil. We saw Trump sign an EO yesterday eroding civil rights and making it legal to discriminate against people again
Hopefully tomorrow. Overrated and boring.When can we ban Romeo and Juliet being read in schools?
That was one justice. I still don't get the uproar over the books besides that there is queer representation in it. There was nothing sexual in the books. I've read them out of curiosity, and while I find them ridiculous , they're no different than any other books for that age level outside of more representation for queer people.I believe it's perfectly reasonable for parents be allowed to opt-out. I state again that there is no educational reason that these books were being adopted by the school district. The fact that a Supreme Court justice seems to be implying that, no opt-out is reasonable and if you don't like it, move or send your kids to private school is problematic.
Books about divorced blended families getting married are read/taught in schools as part of early childhood EQ development...but that doesn't seem to be an issue to anyone because those couples are straight.I believe it's perfectly reasonable for parents be allowed to opt-out. I state again that there is no educational reason that these books were being adopted by the school district. The fact that a Supreme Court justice seems to be implying that, no opt-out is reasonable and if you don't like it, move or send your kids to private school is problematic.
Hopefully tomorrow. Overrated and boring.
Oh, what about The Glass Menagerie too?Are you ok with Catcher in the Rye being read?
Nobody is getting hurt if I decide to opt out of something of my choosing. You will argue that I shouldn’t have an opinion on your choices… why do you get a say in my choices? You know… that whole tolerance thing.I've said previously I'm ok with opt outs for things of sexual nature. This isn't it.
There comes a point where your intentions are pretty clear and it’s not about coexisting or being civil.
You can't be serious with this, after everything being pushed. The goal of the Republican party isn't to coexist or be civil. We saw Trump sign an EO yesterday eroding civil rights and making it legal to discriminate against people again
Why do you get a say in their choices?why do you get a say in my choices?
That's not the argument dude. And I'm done with the conversation. You have zero intentions of having a conversation in good faithNobody is getting hurt if I decide to opt out of something of my choosing. You will argue that I shouldn’t have an opinion on your choices… why do you get a say in my choices? You know… that whole tolerance thing.
Holy cow!
All I remember from this book was Holden Caulfield being insufferable.Are you ok with Catcher in the Rye being read?
That would seem to solve everything.How about we give them a real "choice" with nationwide school choice where tax money follows the student?
Does it tho? Are we ok with tax dollars going to secular schools? What if the Somalian communities in Minnesota started Muslim schools? I know at least one poster on here would be vehemently against thatThat would seem to solve everything.
Not sure why the "secular schools" is included in your response at that is already happening. Yes, it would be fine for Muslim schools as well,Does it tho? Are we ok with tax dollars going to secular schools? What if the Somalian communities in Minnesota started Muslim schools? I know at least one poster on here would be vehemently against that
Promise to done with this conversion… because that was my motive all along. 🤫That's not the argument dude. And I'm done with the conversation. You have zero intentions of having a conversation in good faith
Because tax dollars shouldn't be going to any religious institutionNot sure why the "secular schools" is included in your response at that is already happening. Yes, it would be fine for Muslim schools as well,
Does it tho? Are we ok with tax dollars going to secular schools? What if the Somalian communities in Minnesota started Muslim schools? I know at least one poster on here would be vehemently against that
Muslim schools exist…. and 🦗Not sure why the "secular schools" is included in your response at that is already happening. Yes, it would be fine for Muslim schools as well,
I've already said I was fine with certain opt outs. But I don't believe you should be able to opt out just because there is gay representation in a book. The Bible, Quran or any other holy book or religion shouldn't be taught in public schoolWhat if an Oklahoma middle school said that they will be teaching The Bible in History class accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. It's required. Should people be able to opt-out or not? Do they have to move or choose a private non-religious school?
"Certain" opt outs. Just not in this case.I've already said I was fine with certain opt outs. But I don't believe you should be able to opt out just because there is gay representation in a book. The Bible, Quran or any other holy book or religion shouldn't be taught in public school
Certain opt outs meaning things of overtly sexual things. Not because people are represented. I don't think anything sexual should be taught in schools besides sex education for the record"Certain" opt outs. Just not in this case.
Nope. This is where you guys don't get it. I went to Catholic schools until HS. I was taught religion in the Catholic schools. Religion wasn't taught in the public HS I attended. That's the way it should be. Send them to private school? That's not an answer. They're aren't many families that can afford to send their kids to private schools if they don't agree with religion or LGBQT doctrine people want to teach in public schools. There's a lot of people that don't like their money paying for vouchers to private schools. This would be like me telling you, "You don't like Trump's plan on heath care for Trans? Go get your own private care".@Irish#1 you want to call everyone out that's pushing their religious beliefs out over this issue? Seeing as that's where this all stems from. Plenty of examples throughout nature that support that gay people exist as well add examples of other animals and plants changing their gender
Then you shouldn't be opposed to schools teaching the Bible as a historical document in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. There is no devotionals, no prayer time, no proselytizing. It would seem just as innocent. But, I'm guessing you feel differently.Certain opt outs meaning things of overtly sexual things. Not because people are represented. I don't think anything sexual should be taught in schools besides sex education for the record
Simply having LGBTQ characters in books does not equal indoctrination.Nope. This is where you guys don't get it. I went to Catholic schools until HS. I was taught religion in the Catholic schools. Religion wasn't taught in the public HS I attended. That's the way it should be. Send them to private school? That's not an answer. They're aren't many families that can afford to send their kids to private schools if they don't agree with religion or LGBQT doctrine people want to teach in public schools. There's a lot of people that don't like their money paying for vouchers to private schools. This would be like me telling you, "You don't like Trump's plan on heath care for Trans? Go get your own private care".
Contrary to Toronto's false acquisition that I'm a racist bigot towards browns and Muslims I'm not. What I don't want them to do is impose their beliefs and practices in public space and respect the culture and lifestyle of the country they have come to. I don't want a Rabbi, Minister or Priest doing it either.
Simply teaching the bible as a historical document does not equal indoctrination.Simply having LGBTQ characters in books does not equal indoctrination.
I don't think any religion should be taught in k-12. Should be English, reading, math, sciences(basic sex education falls under this category)Then you shouldn't be opposed to schools teaching the Bible as a historical document in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. There is no devotionals, no prayer time, no proselytizing. It would seem just as innocent. But, I'm guessing you feel differently.
I fully support opt-outs in this Maryland case as well as my hypothetical Oklahoma bible situation.
Agreed, but religion in general has no place in public schools, unless your offering a class or reading in every religionSimply teaching the bible as a historical document does not equal indoctrination.