Julie

Your writing is inconsistent and a bit all over the map. Then you are baffled that your readers are confused. It is not us honey, it is your verbiage. You use too many words to say so little. It is annoying. I don't even think Jesus would dig it. Now, you have brought in another Bible thumper to help you out. Thank God for Wilonsky and Grimes or this blog would be like attending the Church Of God. Please answer the following questions in the simplest way you know how.

Do you, as a Pentecostal, believe that those of the Jewish faith will burn in hell?

How in your mind do you rationalize your concern over young minds reading something written by Maya Angelou, yet the Dallas Observer have a paper filled with porn/sex/strip club ads scattered all over the city? Many of them are near schools with innocent children.

These questions do not require your life story, or Biblical quotes. These are questions about you, and your values that you are given this opportunity to espouse frequently and without follow up.

Why don't you let me interview you for the Dallas Observer?

Jack E. Jett
BTW......Could you have found a more unattractive photo of Maya Angelou?

Innocence. I wonder how far David and Lorrie carry the concept.

You know what I mean. I wonder if they've taught her about lying yet. Some people lie you know. It can be pretty devastating when you're lied to, or even worse, lied about. I wonder if Caitlin still believes that lying is okay or if it even exists.

I wonder how David and Lorrie handle stealing. It happens. And it's heartbreaking when it's your stuff that's taken. Yup, I wonder if Caitlin knows about it yet.

Let's not forget death. Maybe to preserve Caitlin's innocence when a pet died David and Lorrie told her it had just left. They couldn't say it had been stolen, double doggone darn. If she didn't know about lying, what could it hurt? When you consider the pain of loss a little lying isn't lying when you're in the innocence preservation business.

Let's not forget the thing thing. One has to wonder how David and Lorrie handled the thing thing while preserving Caitlin's innocence.

Thing thing you ask? Remember how heartbroke you were when you couldn't have that thing? You know, when your dreams were shattered because there was something that your parents couldn't or wouldn't afford that was a matter of life and death for you? The thing thing. It's probably the major step where we visit innocence lost and we look at the ugly side of maturity.

Unless of course innocence is only about the mechanics of sex.

That my friend is living in a fantasy world of your own making. And that's okay. But dragging your kids into your fantasy sucks.

I'm Greek Orthodox, and we're about as conservative as they come, but I cannot agree with David and Lorrie's decision to challenge the inclusion of the book in the school district's curriculum. They should simply have been satisfied with an alternative assignment for their own child. By challenging the curriculum itself, they interfered with the rights of the other parents.

Secondly, I cannot buy this idea that a sophomore curriculum should have no "controversial" works. How could that be a workable rule for a school district? Any work of literature will be arguably controversial from one point of view or another.

Alright everyone, here is your assignment. View the following video and write a 250 critique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AleIJleWos&mode=related&search=

"250 word critique" - I guess I failed the assignment, and have to repeat the course. :(

1. I'm a Christian
2. I firmly believe that my sons (one is 15, the other 18) should be and have been exposed to lots of different ideas, books and music
3.I've read and enjoyed I know why the Caged Bird Sings
4. These parents should have the right to decide what age their kids should be exposed to certain ideas, even if it's not a choice I'd make
5. They shouldn't have the right to make that decision for me.
5. These parents should not have been subjected to the ridicule that they experienced.
6. All of these things would go a lot better if we all treated each other's opinions with respect.

I agree, Jack. This column wasn't particularly well written. It started falling apart toward the end, especially.

It's OK, though. I stopped reading Bible Girl for Bible Girl several weeks back. Now I read it for Harvey Lacey. His stuff is interesting, substantive and cleverly delivered.

harvey lacey rocks!!!!!!!!!!!

jack jett

Brint and Jack, NO FEEDING THE ANIMALS!!!

These parents should not have been subjected to the ridicule that they experienced.Bill H

I'm twixt and tween on that one Bill.

Humor has been and probably will be the bridge that enables us to get it. You never really get the total ignorance of racism until you hear a comedian lay it out there for all to see. The same thing goes for politics and religious stuff. Framing it with humor highlights it's strengths and weaknesses.

I wouldn't hold ridicule in too harsh a light if I was you. Remember, it was national and international ridicule that brought the Kansas voters to the polls to get rid of the conservative b.s. they had shoved down their throats.

It's the fear of ridicule that has the Methodists working on the knots in their skirts over the chance they'll have a Bush library on their campus. I can get behind their concern. I've seen the kinds of people that drive the Suburbans with the oval W-04 stickers. I wouldn't want them gang banging in my neighborhood either.

It's fear of ridicule that has the Southern Baptists sniping at each other like Shiites and Sunnis. Aren't the baptists on W's team to give women rights in Iraq?

I'd like to get serious about the issue for a minute. For me it's personal, I have kids and grandkids.

They have to live in a world with the kids and grandkids of people like David and Lorrie. That worries me. It worries me just like reading that thirty percent of black mothers are married, something like fifty five percent of white mothers are. Different concerns, same principle involved, incomplete education.

Rod Dreher of DMN fame tells about making his seven year old son keep his down while using the rest room in a shady convenience store in Louisiana. There was a condom machine on the wall above the urinal. Rod doesn't want to have to explain to his seven year old what a "french tickler" is.

When I read that I was on him like a flock of hens on a roach at a June Bug convention. The only thing worse in my book than sitting down and explaining to a seven year old the purpose of a french tickler would be to give a condom machine magic power. And I'm afraid Rod did that with his immature and irrational response to an appliance on a wall in men's room.

That little boy didn't have a clue what the machine on the wall was until his daddy empowered the machine by showing fear of it. If it's powerful enough to scare the most influential person in the little boys life then it must have some kind of magic.

I personally feel the machine should have been ignored. If the son had asked questions then Rod should have answered those questions with answers that were accurate but age appropriate. A simple explanation that it was a machine for products that some people use but his father didn't or hadn't. It was an adult thing. And you know how silly adults can be at times.

What Rod had was an opportunity to poison the well I like to say. We can't ever overestimate the power of a father like Rod's opinion in his son's mind. Rod had the opportunity to frame the concept of those machines and their products so that when young son was with some older kids and the subject came up he'd already formed an opinion, the kind of opinion Rod wants his son to have.

Now we have the situation where if that scenario arises, big kids talking about the machines in the rest room and their products, young son is going to be all ears and ripe for learning exactly the lesson Rod is so afraid he might. Because Rod with his actions already gave the machines credibility, magic.

It's a small world. Let's say my five year old granddaughter grows up and is hit on by Rod's seven year old. I would much rather have the boy hitting on my granddaughter not be brought up getting his lessons from the older kids because his father was afraid of harmless machines with silly decals on them in men's rooms.

Julie wrote, "One day Caitlin, who's 15, was reading one of the assigned books for her advanced English class at Fond du Lac High School, and she found herself getting really uncomfortable. She'd worked her way past an earlier scene where the white-trash girl does a handstand, revealing her crotch, but this chapter graphically described a rape—complete with explicit descriptions of body parts, the wetness, the pain.

Caitlin and her family are devout Christians. And she did what kids do in families where rebellion isn't the presumed rite of passage: She brought it to her parents. "Look at the book we're reading," Caitlin said. "It's pornography. Nobody can believe this.""

What an opportunity for Lorrie, well posioning time one oh one, hand me the jar, get out of the way.

Here Maya has handed Lorrie the ultimate gift, her daughter coming to her with great topics for discussion and she, Caitlin, has got her ears on.

For you that were never teenagers nor have had the opportunity to parent a teenager there's something you need to understand. Teenagers suffer from the same phenomena that afflicts middle management. I call it head up the butt syndrome. We know it's head up the butt something because that's the closest and most likely place for someone to have their head so firmly placed that the ears are totally disabled.

Kids, like middle managers, can't and or won't hear. But kids unlike middle managers on occasion will put on their ears. There's only one thing more rare than that. That's when the kid has their ears on and they're wanting to discuss something important.

Caitlin comes to Lorrie with her ears on and two of the most wonderful gifts for Lorrie from Maya that any parent could ask, pray for.

1. Maya has given Lorrie a great example of trashy behavior, white girl or no. She can use the example in the story to define how Caitlin's parents feel about such behavior. She can explain that when a woman acts trashy it's usually because she's been raised that she only has one redeeming feature. It's all she's got, all she is, you got it, you flaunt it.

Lorrie and David don't feel that way about Caitlin. She's much more than just a sex object. She's got value. Etc and so on, mama doing the mama thing as only a mama can do.

2. Maya has given Lorrie the perfect example of what sex isn't. She can explain that rape isn't an example of pornography. It's rape. Rape is violence. Pornography is about the physical aspects of sex. It's like saying diamonds are all about cutting glass. Sure you can cut glass with a diamond. But diamonds are about so much more. And yes, some people only see diamonds as great for cutting glass.

So we have Caitlin acting immature, running to mama all uncomfortable about words lined up just right to paint a picture. Lorrie grabs the immaturity and takes it to another level. Giving all of Caitlin's misconceptions and irrational fears credibility. David joins the girls under the bed screaming about the sky falling.

Isn't that just pure t stupid? If you were Caitlin how do you feel would have been the best response?

Am I wrong to suggest that David and Lorries response was immature besides being irrational?

Don't they owe Maya and apology? After all, she handed them a gift and they're bitching about the bow clashing with the wrapping paper.

Harvey, I like humor. Especially if it has a point. I enjoyed the parts of Borat, which held up prejudice to ridicule. Here's my problem with this scenario, however. We elevate 'choice' up on the altar of adoration in this society, yet here's a family exercising a choice about the pace of their kids exposure to certain ideas and everyone screams that they are Nazi book burners. I don't think that is right. I don't agree that books they object to should be off the reading list, then they are making a choice for me and my family.

Again, it's not the choice I have made for my sons. I believe that they should understand the world around them at a pretty early age.

they do not owe Maya an apology about their view of when their daughter should read a book. Did they ask for this 'gift?'

I personally disagree with their choice about what books their daughter reads, but is it really any of my business?

What about the Amish? Or Hassidic kids, or devout Muslim kids. Their parents make lots of decisions I don't, but shouldn't that be permitted in this plurallistic society we are trying to perpetuate?

As always Harvey, you make your point very well and in a thought provoking way

best,

bill

Thank for the wonderful reply Bill. We are on one of my mostest favoritest topics and I do get carried away on occasion. The "Maya deserves a thanks" might fall into that category.

The reason I believe it though is simple. Maya wrote about a sequence of events. The way she presented the events reached into the heart of Caitlin and caused a reaction. That there was a reaction is the reason for Maya deserving an appreciative response from the parents.

Caitlin surely is aware that some girls see their bottom as the ultimate reflection of attitude and power. I'm also confident in assuming that Caitlin was aware that rape is out there just waiting.

But, and this but is of Rosanne Barr proportions, it took Maya's stacking the words to form the picture that initiated Caitlin's response, a scenario that was so disturbing that she went to her parents. It took Maya's word selection to cause that reaction.

I see David and Lorrie being indebted to Maya for the opportunity to have dialoge with their daughter about some of the most important topics a teenage girl can face.

Just like I can see clearly that they, David and Lorrie, blew it big time. When the disturbing word stack was presented to them they didn't embrace them like they're told to do by common wisdom, make lemons out of lemonade. No they went for the orange, Agent Orange.

Look at it for a minute. We have a fifteen year old girl going to her parents for answers, explanations if you will. What she got was embarrassment and negative peer pressure. Why? Just because the parents either weren't equipped to diffuse difficult information? Or because the parents were so paranoid that destroying their daughter's social standing was an incidental casualty?

What will Caitlin do now when the next situation comes up? Do you think for a minute that she'll go running to David and Lorrie? I don't either. They've already shown how they handle difficult situations.

What about the Amish? Or Hassidic kids, or devout Muslim kids. Their parents make lots of decisions I don't, but shouldn't that be permitted in this plurallistic society we are trying to perpetuate? Bill H

Yes.

In fact I believe a new view of the role of a parent will be embraced by those groups just like it will be embraced by involved parents everywhere.

I don't believe I ridiculed David and Lorrie's faith or position on items of a sexual nature. I disagree strongly with their response. I believe their reaction reflected less about their faith and more about their immaturity.

I have great expectations of the parents today. I see them having the potential for being the best parents that have ever been in the modern era, faith being more an incidental than a critical component.

Someone is going to step out in front of the pack and provide these parents a viable alternative. It will be a vision of the role of a parent and it's not what they've been taught.

The first thing is you don't make a sword or a plow without heat and a hammer. It's the difficulties that make us strong. The lessons we learn by experiencing that stick with us.

Just as importantly is parents are not supposed to be friends with their children. Kids can get friends anywhere. Parents don't come around that often. A parent has one function and one function only. That is to prepare the child for life as an adult.

Those lessons have nothing to do with faith beyond presenting a preferred faith for consideration.

The reason I discount faith as critical is because faith only survives intact in a closed society. The Amish is a perfect example.

"Look at it for a minute. We have a fifteen year old girl going to her parents for answers, explanations if you will. What she got was embarrassment and negative peer pressure. Why? Just because the parents either weren't equipped to diffuse difficult information? Or because the parents were so paranoid that destroying their daughter's social standing was an incidental casualty?"

I think that's a harsh way of describing what they did.

"Lorrie was upset. But she resolved to handle her objections in a respectful manner. She approached Caitlin's teacher, then worked her way up the school's chain of command, informing them in private that she didn't want her daughter to read any further in the book or participate in class discussions about it. And, she asked, just how did it end up in the sophomore curriculum to begin with, when her research indicated that most school districts avoided Caged Bird because of its adult content, and its inclusion in high-school curricula had proved controversial in many other locales?"

Now, as to her social standing, I suspect they aren't as concerned about that. I know I'm not. My son got unmitigated grief at his inner city high school, because he has stood up for the rights of gays and told people he didn't want to
hear epithets. Am I bothered by the ridicule he received? Yes, it pains me, but frankly I'm more interested in his character.

So, the fact that these parents stood up for their convictions and principals, I think is much more important that their daughter's social standing.

As for your points about missed opportunity. I personally agree. You say it is the challenges that make us stronger. Agreed.

The world is a very challenging place, lots of competing ideas and philosophies. I certainly think that kids being aware of those, engaged with them and discussing them with their parents is a good thing. I just think that parents should retain the right to decide how to best do that, and shouldn't face community outrage when the exercise and unpopular view.

As to whether faith is a critical component of life. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I view faith as one of the critical components of life, a part of a balanced life, in the same was as emotional, intellectual and physical health and well being. I respect your view and your right to hold it.

"A parent has one function and one function only. That is to prepare the child for life as an adult.Those lessons have nothing to do with faith beyond presenting a preferred faith for consideration."

That's the tricky part (as the dancing fig newton once said on an ancient commercial. Where does that begin and end? The line is different from Caitlin's parents and me, but I think it's best that we draw our respective lines with a minimum of interference from the government.

thanks for the continued respectful tone and content of your points. Oh, to clarify, I was not saying that you were ridiculing them, I was referring to the town reaction to these people, which upon reflection was less ridicule and more just plain over reaction, I think.

bill

Jack E Jett -

While I did assist in the research for this column, I am not, as you suggest, a "Bible thumper."

I was actually raised Unitarian Universalist, and learning to thump Bibles was never part of the religious education curriculum.

- Kaitlin Ingram

Look, this is why religious extremist should not be allowed so much power of the pen. This is propaganda. Bible Girl puts this shit out there and by not responding to some really incredible questions, she just chooses to write more propaganda.

Kaitlin, call it what you want. If you are Bible Girl's gal pal, you are a Bible Thumper, either that or a religious extremist, or as my friends like to call them, "the pedastal people".

I will say that Bible Girl and you have a lot of nerve to disucss what is tastefull and appropriate from someone of the ilk of Maya Angelou, while you weekly produce tons of porn ads, sex ads stripper ads and promiscious sex ads. These are placed around the city (AT NO EXPENSE TO YOU) and these very ads pay your salary.

Now before I got on my high horse of morality, I might do a re check of where my check is coming from.

I must assume Kaitlin, that you find it cool that a young child can peruse a copy of the Dallas Observer
and find out that a Penthouse Pet will be taking off her clothes on Saturday night, however, it is wrong for the same child to learn about rape.

Also, why doesn't Bible Girl answer the question I keep posing. Does she, or her Pentecostal belief system think that people of the jewish faith are
destined for hell? What about Buddahist?

Does Bible Girl think that the 14 year girl that was raped and killed by an American soilder in Iraq will go to heaven as she was a muslim? Will the soilder that raped and killed her go to heaven because he is a Christian.

Answer the questions, please and try to be a little less wordy.

To be honest, only you fellow church goers give a rats ass about your life growing up. I, for one, want to know how someone with extremist fews is allowed such power.

Jack Jett

Jack Jett, if that is your real name.

I suggest you get a life and stop trolling message boards. Maybe the author has better things to do than answer your pointless questions.

Start here: www.getafirstlife.com

Dear Lover:

You know that I don't have a life. You are my lover. Unless your name is Jack Jett Lover.

As my lover, you should know that not only do I not have a home, but I am without any food as well. All I have is a lap top, an espresson machine and a bag of pot.

If I didn't call these religious extremist on their shit, this would be nothing more than Bible Girls Bible School.

The questions will only appear pointless if you have already swallowed the kool aid.

Asking her if she things that those of the jewish faith are going to hell is not pointless if your are of the jewish faith and spend money with the Dallas Observer.

And you know, as my lover, how worried I am about our children, the little Lovers, that they might stumble upon the smut induced back pages of a
Dallas Observer while triping over banned Maya Angelou books.

Anyway, lover, come give Daddy Jack the nookie that he needs and I'll whip up a double for you.

The photos on the site you wanted me to link to
is a form of pornography that is very illegal. You should be careful as they put people in prison for having that on their lap tops.

BTW, Jett is just as real of a last name as Girl.

I love you.

I was just telling my wife about you Bill. She thinks its great that I have a Christian partner in the discussion that's polite and respectful.

The world is a very challenging place, lots of competing ideas and philosophies. I certainly think that kids being aware of those, engaged with them and discussing them with their parents is a good thing. I just think that parents should retain the right to decide how to best do that, and shouldn't face community outrage when the exercise and unpopular view.

Okay.

However, there's always a however, I believe using the outrageous positions of some people as examples of poor parenting principles is not only applicable, but prudent.

It's bed time, early to bed, I like the wise part, harvey

I finally made it back Bill. I've been up two hours already and finally get back to one of my favorite conversations. I'm like an old setter we used to have. He'd get out and he had about a mile of marking locations he had to check out and refresh before he got down to business. Checking out and refreshing the markings can become habit forming.

As to whether faith is a critical component of life. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I view faith as one of the critical components of life, a part of a balanced life, in the same was as emotional, intellectual and physical health and well being. I respect your view and your right to hold it.

Again, I agree. But I see the believing as the critical part. What one believes is incidental.

Believing takes all to the same place. If you look at the most devout priest or devotee of whatever faith and compare them to a Harris or Dawkins you find the same point has been reached. They're at a point where they've accepted their limitations and resigned themselves to being mere humans along for the ride. They share the same sense of empowerment that comes from reaching a point where one knows what they can do and are responsible for. And the freedom that comes from not being responsible for that not in their control.

I like to think one of the reasons I find comradeship with serious believers in other faiths is we are at the same fishing hole, just different boats.

I applaud your pride in your son and his stepping up and standing out at school. Courage like that deserves respect. It says good things about his parents but that's incidental. What's important is he got an education early about the rewards and ramifications of being an individual with beliefs and the strength to stand up for those beliefs. He will make our world a better place.

For those so interested Rod Dreher has cross posted his opinion on Julie's story here.

Like David in the story Rod has responded in a manly way. He's kicked off his heels, pulled up his skirt and ran screaming into the street about persectution for being a Christian.

Harvey, you still don't get it, do you?

This time, you said: "Maya has given Lorrie the perfect example of what sex isn't. She can explain that rape isn't an example of pornography. It's rape. Rape is violence. Pornography is about the physical aspects of sex."

If you looked at much pornography, Harvey, you would learn that much of it does feature rape acts, fantasies, or enactments.

Yes, rape is violence - at least you're right on that count - but it's also about the physical aspects of sex. Rape is sexual violence. An act of forced penis-vagina contact can be rape and violence all at once - and, if it's recorded, becomes pornography as well.

Rape is not what sex SHOULD be... but it is about sex. That's why it's rape. Rape is sexual violence. Please consult your dictionary, Harvey.

Rod writes:

"What's proto-fascist is showing up with signs decrying a "Christian Taliban," and carrying on like screaming meemies in an attempt to defeat the Christian parents by demonizing them."

You respond:

"He's kicked off his heels, pulled up his skirt and ran screaming into the street about persectution for being a Christian."

Is that fair? I respectfully submit it is not. I'm sure that you get Rod's point that discussion should be civil. I agree that yours and mine has been. I have enjoyed it, and think that you and I could share a beer or coffee enjoyably. I think we've done the cyber equivalent if that is possible.

I do think that characterizing the opponents as 'proto-fascist' and 'screaming meemies', falls into the sort of characterization that doesn't advance discussion. Respectully, I think your last remarks do as well.

I don't always participate in online discussions, because they seem to always degenerate into the most shrill and personal attacks. I think it's worse on the Internet, because it's too easy to hit the send button. It's often anonymous. (I appreciate the fact you are not anonymous Harvey.)

I think I've made my point about demonizing these poor parents, who are just trying to raise a teen ager, which after all is brutally difficult.

best wishes,

bill h

Poor Rod. He thinks he and Bible Chick are victims of religious persecution.

The fact is that he is far to judgemental to be judged.

This is taking hypocrisy to a "whole nother level".

Maybe they should try praying the "screaming meemies" away.

Jack Meemie

It is truly sad when the extremes become dominant and civil discourse yields to snarling sound bites from internet junkyard dogs.

Reason and accommodation are becoming uncommon. We seem to live in a society where shouting loud is viewed as superior to sound reason, and winning at all costs is more important than a good outcome.

The school's decision to allow an objecting student (and their parents) to select an alternate work is a good outcome. I expect though that many members on the edge (of either side) are disappointed. That is really unfortunate as it points to a state in which seeing one's flag at the top of the pole while the community burns (in anger) is most important to a lot of people.

Let us reason together.

What an amazing thought. It is however one that I expect is about to become as extinct as the dinosaurs. Each of us has a role in engaging honourably in society, to speak and also to listen. To participate and to be humble enough to realise that others with whom we have disagreements may have something to teach us.

It saddens me to see this change in the social and political landscape. People with whom we disagree are not the anti-Christ or mindless fundies. We live in the same or similiar communitees, and we each want to see our children happy, healthy, and contributing to a healthy society. So when do we stop demonizing and start treating each other with respect and tolerance?

The school board made the right call as far as I see it, and the theatrics of the meeting was disgraceful.

First, thanks for the kind remarks about my son. I am proud and am glad it shows. I am proud he doesn't follow the crowd. Which seems to me to be of the real problems. It can happen with us religious folk, getting ourselves all worked up and hateful, spewing the sort of hate filled speech that has become increasingly identified with Christians, sadly. It can also happen to anti-religious zealots, who just can't seem to bring themselves to admit that there might possibly be some good that comes from us believers and the concept of faith in a Creator. I'm pleased that you don't express yourself in that way Harvey.

Now that the agreeing is agreed on:
"Again, I agree. But I see the believing as the critical part. What one believes is incidental."

I can't go with you there Harvey, if I understand your point. There are all sorts of things that just aren't worth believing in. In fact by believing and acting on them, you make the world worse.

Nazis, the Hutu power proponents of Rwanda, Marxists, Right wing death squads and the list goes on.

I think one thing all these folks have in common is a lack of humility. Harvey, my Christian beliefs and in scripture are the guiding principles of my life. I try to live by them. But, I try to remember two things, One, not everyone believes like me. There are people of good will and high motive, that do not even believe in a creator. Second, I could be wrong. I'm darn sure imperfect. While I believe with all my heart soul and mind (to quote the Bible for a moment), I could be mistaken in what I think about it all, and that among other things (like having a teenager) keeps me humble.

Again, thanks for the respectful and intelligent tone of your comments.

best,

bill

It is noteworthy that Ms. Lautenschlaeger was defeated in the Democrat PRIMARY race--and that the Democrat who succeeded in that primary was defeated by a Republican.

That (R) was the only successful (R) in a state-wide race in the '06 election.

Fact is that Ms. L. (and the Democrat who subsequently lost) were peas-in-a-pod, politically, and even in Wisconsin, that doesn't play well.

L.A. Stich is correct--Ms. Lautenschlager lost in the September primary, not the November general election. I apologize for the error.

I firmly believe that my sons (one is 15, the other 18) should be and have been exposed to lots of different ideas, books and music

bill h, this doesn't mean anything. I believe everyone pretty much would agree with your words, but not on what they mean.

What if I, as your child's teacher, introduce Penthouse to the classroom? Still like the exposure? How about hate literature?

This discussion is silly. Of course we must discriminate what is read in the classroom, and of course the parents have a say in what it is.

This is why public schools are doomed...our culture is too multicultural. In another few generations we will have splintered into separate cultures, and thank goodness.

The comments here, and the article above, are (in the words of Mark Shea) reason 35394323 to homeschool. A large chunk of parents who are serious about their child's education simply are leaving the mess behind.

Harvey, you still don't get it, do you?

This time, you said: "Maya has given Lorrie the perfect example of what sex isn't. She can explain that rape isn't an example of pornography. It's rape. Rape is violence. Pornography is about the physical aspects of sex."

If you looked at much pornography, Harvey, you would learn that much of it does feature rape acts, fantasies, or enactments.

Yes, rape is violence - at least you're right on that count - but it's also about the physical aspects of sex. Rape is sexual violence. An act of forced penis-vagina contact can be rape and violence all at once - and, if it's recorded, becomes pornography as well.

Rape is not what sex SHOULD be... but it is about sex. That's why it's rape. Rape is sexual violence. Please consult your dictionary, Harvey.

Comment by Rebecca Davis Winters

Evening Rebecca, I don't know about where you've been but in my corner of norte tejas it's been a miserable day weatherwise.

You'd probably not notice but there was an interuption. My wife called from the kitchen wanting my help with supper. As you know things aren't always what they seem. If we had the grandkids like we'll have tomorrow or if we had company coming for supper my presence would be necessary. But tonight it's just the two of us and we're making home made chicken enchiladas. So her wanting me in the kitchen helping out isn't about helping out. It's about being there and sharing the day. Spouses are like that. Sometimes they just want us there because, well, they like us. So I chopped jalopenas, onions, tomatoes, chicken I'd boiled Saturday, and of course lettuce for the tomatoes.

Which brings me back to you. I think we're on the same page basically, you're just a paragraph or two behind me.

Rape is about sexual violence. But it's only sexual in the way gun violence is about guns or baseball bat violence is about baseball.

That's why it's necessary for it to be discussed openly between parents and maybe just as importantly, between students in a supervised classroom. Boys need to understand where it stops being sex and becomes violence. So do girls.

This is especially true today when pornography is so readily available. The violence associated with sex in pornography probably needs to be dealt with more than any other aspect of sexual activity. That's why Maya's presenting it in such a graphic way as violence and the pain it causes is so important an issue.

As you know it's knowledge that sets us free. If you've ever worked in an office you also know that knowledge is a powerful tool for managing others. I stand by my position that Maya offered David and Lorrie the perfect opportunity for discussing this important issue with their daughter. They blew it big time.

Jack Jett, you are silly ankle biting mental midget. You troll Bible Girl like it pays your wage.

Morning Bill,

It's going to be a good day. I'm going to be like a cat covering poop at the dog pound, but it's going to be a good day.

I am proud he doesn't follow the crowd. Which seems to me to be of the real problems. It can happen with us religious folk, getting ourselves all worked up and hateful, spewing the sort of hate filled speech that has become increasingly identified with Christians, sadly. It can also happen to anti-religious zealots, who just can't seem to bring themselves to admit that there might possibly be some good that comes from us believers and the concept of faith in a Creator.

Don't tell anyone. But sometimes some atheists come across as ignorant as some Christians. I'll never admit this of course. But it has happened. I've experienced it with my own eyes and ears.

One of my friends is like most of the friends in our lives I believe. When I see him it's like we're family but we can go months without seeking each other out. In the last three years I've been there as he almost lost his young son and his older daughter. Both times he literally was facing the loss of them and miraculously things worked out for the better. He's found his faith sustaining under such duress. I've never corrected him when he assumed I was a Christian too.

Then the other day we were discussing daughters and their importance in our lives when he made some statement that assumed I was a believer also. I gently explained that I agreed with him up to but not including the divine influence because I was an atheist.

He never blinked. The reason he never blinked is because what we had shared was many times larger what we didn't. The bond we had formed going through the trials with his kids problems was too strong to let a simple thing like God or No contaminate it. In my own life I've found this to be the norm instead of the exception.

Most of my real life friends are Christians of one stripe or another. They take my atheism as mine just like my beard is mine, not something they'd have, but on me it works fine. I wouldn't be me without it.

My expectations that we'll get better instead of worse as a society is based upon little experiences like the above. I understand that bias based upon sexual orientation disappears when you love someone who is a homosexual. The same thing goes for bias based upon race or gender.

The reason I come unglued on Julie's blog is because I have a theory about kids and learning and parenting.

I use the example of the little white eight year old boy whose best friend at school is black. When he's sitting at the supper at Mickey D's with dad and mom and dad goes off on a racist rant against blacks it presents a quandry for the little boy.

On the one hand the most powerful person in the whole world, his father, is saying bad things about black people. On the other there's the personal feelings and knowledge about his black friend. He has to weigh which is right, his personal knowledge based upon his own experiences? Or the rants of his father?

I'm betting on the personal experiences with the black boy at school. The casualty in this scenario is the credibility of the father in the eyes of the son.

I look at David and Lorrie in Julie's blog not being unlike the racist father. The commonality is their position is based upon misinformation. And just like the little white boy is avoiding being more of a racist than his father by the exposure to the little black boy Caitlin will probably end up being a more enlightend Christian by the exposure to Maya's words. It might not show up immediately. But time and life will reveal more information. As that information becomes available Maya's words will ring more true.

I'm running late, chickens to catch, eggs to fry. Thanks again for being so considerate, it's contagious.

jimmy

i would rather be thought of as a mental little person than a midget.

trolling is a fishing term. i don't do fish for pay or play.

i do enjoy a good spar every now and then, and i firmly believe that organized religion is what got us into the current war that we are in now.

julie lyons just doesn't answer questions, that if she were really a "true believer" she wouldn't have a problem answering. instead she hides behind
vague stories of her youth, that read as though they were written in her youth and expects all her church members to get on the band wagon and trash anyone that doesn't believe her.

so, jimmy, give your friend a kiss, and remind her she has 98 percent of dallas behind her in her belief system.
don't be fearful on one or two dissenting voices, or you will just end up with a cyber "jesus camp"

btw....this subject can be seen from another side here.

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/07a/becky_fisher.html

jack jett

Afternoon Harvey. A few Ramen Noodles at my desk for lunch. Hope you're chickens are roasting on a Mesquite fired grill.

I agree with your general idea:
"I use the example of the little white eight year old boy whose best friend at school is black. When he's sitting at the supper at Mickey D's with dad and mom and dad goes off on a racist rant against blacks it presents a quandry for the little boy.
On the one hand the most powerful person in the whole world, his father, is saying bad things about black people. On the other there's the personal feelings and knowledge about his black friend. He has to weigh which is right, his personal knowledge based upon his own experiences? Or the rants of his father?"

I draw on my own experience growing up in Alabama. I was brought up in a racist segregated environment. Neighborhood, church, school were all white. I realized the error of those ideas when I was first exposed to black kids, in my case at scout camp. So, at the age of 12, based on that personal experience, I realized the inherant worth of individuals. For me it was a revolution. It led to me as an adolescent reading books like "Why We Can't Wait," by Dr. King. It was a huge disconnect from my family.

I don't think I agree, however that this is applicable to this situation. You say:
"I look at David and Lorrie in Julie's blog not being unlike the racist father. The commonality is their position is based upon misinformation."

I don't think that there is any 'misinformation'. There is a collision of values. These parents have decided that they don't want their teenage daughter exposed to a book with a sexually explicit passage. Shouldn't they have the right to that decision? I think they should, and they shouldn't be called Nazis because they did.

M David, you write:
"bill h, this doesn't mean anything. I believe everyone pretty much would agree with your words, but not on what they mean. What if I, as your child's teacher, introduce Penthouse to the classroom? Still like the exposure? How about hate literature? This discussion is silly. Of course we must discriminate what is read in the classroom, and of course the parents have a say in what it is. This is why public schools are doomed...our culture is too multicultural. "

Of course I dont' want my kids (or me for that matter) exposed to pornography. I of course mean ideas of artistic merit. I should have said that. We're talking about literature, not pornography.
Where that line is drawn is subjective. I did mean that I have broader parameters than the parents in this ariticle. I was making that point because I was defending their right to choose, not because I agree with their choice.

I personally think that as Christians, I want my sons to be well educated about all sorts of serious literature and themes. I realize that the parents described here do to, but they have a different line than me. It's why parents need to be involved in the education process and why this town was wrong in castigating them for their decision.

"In another few generations we will have splintered into separate cultures, and thank goodness."

I couldn't disagree more. When the Apostle Paul stood in the Agora in Athens he addressed the Stoics gathered there. he quoted a line from the poem Cretica written by Epimenides (ca. 600 BCE) as well as the Cilician poet Aratus (ca. 315-240 BCE): "It is with Zeus that every one of us in every way has to do, for we are also his offspring" (Phaenonlena 5). Paul was an educated man and addressed that culture with terms they understood and accepted. I'm not saying that can't happen with home schoolers, I know it does. I am saying that my wife and I have made a calculated decision to allow our kids to read books, other Christians would probably disaprove of.

You say, many who are serious about education are abandoning public schools. I think that is a shame. I wouldn't second guess their decision (something I think you would do Harvey, just like I think M David would second guess mine.), but I think it is a mistake to create what is in effect a Christian ghetto. That benefits no one.

blessings and peace,

bill

okay guys;

this has got to be bible girls husband on this video.

http://collect.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1802175110

this is freaking awesome video.

jack jett

don't worry it is safe for your kids....
especially those that you want to keep away from the that pornographer maya angelou

Evening Bill, it was one of those days.

I'm luckier than most people because my days are about problem solving. It doesn't involve so much problem solving with people, been there, done that, have the t shirt, ball cap, even the cute little socks, and yes, I got the watch.

I've got a patent pending. It's on a product that's as handy as a pocket on a shirt if you know what I mean. Today I made a sample piece to demonstrate it for an open house at Plano Power Equipment on 75 and 15th in Plano. The open house is tomorrow. But before I could start the sample piece I had to finish up a generator carrying bumper for a friends fifth wheel travel trailer.

Everything came together wonderfully. Like I said, I'm luckier than most people. I get to problem solve and that includes the hands on fabrication and installation. It's like having one dessert after another all day long. It's just physically demanding which makes me tired some days more than others.

I don't think I agree, however that this is applicable to this situation. You say:
"I look at David and Lorrie in Julie's blog not being unlike the racist father. The commonality is their position is based upon misinformation."

I don't think that there is any 'misinformation'. There is a collision of values. These parents have decided that they don't want their teenage daughter exposed to a book with a sexually explicit passage. Shouldn't they have the right to that decision? I think they should, and they shouldn't be called Nazis because they did. Bill H.

It's not about values as I see it Bill. It's about misinformation.

Let me explain. I'll bet a lot of people who have read our dialogue have looked at me saying it was a teaching moment, learning opportunity for Caitlin, great bonding chance for the family and thought I was right.

That's good information that was missing in David and Lorries hard drives as I see it. They weren't informed that life offers us magical moments and we need to be aware that they happen and are to be embraced.

As for the rights to misinformation, I agree they have that right. But as with everything, there are consequences for our misreading or just flat missing the moment. There's also consequences for acting the fool. We will be judged accordingly and rightfully so.

So David and Lorrie have the right to do what they did. Even the part about seeking to have the book removed from the curriculum, that's a right we have as citizens, to seek change when we feel it is necessary. But the consequences of such actions isn't always what we seek to achieve or even expect sometimes.

The racist father of the eight year old I mentioned has the right to be a racist. He doesn't have the right to impose his racism upon others. But he does have the right to have his views and to express them. I'm sure fear and common sense are two great limiters for his expressing them every time he'd like.

The consequences of his racism are also a reasonable expectation of rejection along with the potential of reprisals in some situations. His losing the respect of his son has to be considered as a reasonable response I think you'll agree.

One of the problems today is the categorization of prejudice as a value. Fundamentalist Christians declare their prejudice against same sex relationship as a value judgement. It isn't. It's ignorance on a pony wanting to race a rat up a rope.

Keep in mind that late last century Bob Jones University advocated banning interacial marriages as a value.

I can go on and on but I think you know where it is I'm headed. It wasn't a clash of value systems. It was irrational fear hand in hand with ignorance dancing in a public forum. It was about misinformation charging ahead when maturity would have slowed down and embraced the moment.

They were within their rights as citizens and parents. But having rights and being right aren't always in the same room at the same time.

I hope you have a great day tomorrow. I plan on having some kind of fun. I'm looking forward to the responses to my product I'm developing. It's a win win for me. If they're impressed and excited then I'll be happy as a pup with two tails. If they aren't then hopefully I'll have a sense where I need to make some changes. Either way it's a step forward in the process.

Double doggone darn Bill, I got in last night tail tucked firmly between legs. After supper I whupped out what I thought was a pretty good reply for you.

Evidently I held my mouth wrong when I clicked on the "Pres me now" . Those words disappeared into the ether evidently. God works in mysterious ways.

Lunch was gratis and Mexican. My wife says it's my attitude, she might be right, she is more than she is wrong, I personally believe it's the spanglish I speak, but the waitresses and waiters at Mexican restraurants treat me good, much better than I deserve. Maybe it's the ordering poquito mas caliente salsa con mucho jalopenas that causes the kindred spirit reaction, I don't know.

I don't think I agree, however that this is applicable to this situation. You say:
"I look at David and Lorrie in Julie's blog not being unlike the racist father. The commonality is their position is based upon misinformation."

I don't think that there is any 'misinformation'. There is a collision of values. Bill H.

Hmmmmmmm, what if I suggested that instead of using "values" you substituted "prejudices"?

Groups, especially the young, will abduct words from society and hold them hostage to a meaning that only they alone can appreciate. I believe the spinmasters from Thecon Inc have done just that with the word values. They've stolen that good word to support their prejudices just like they've stolen and abused scriptures to legitimize bigotry and ignorance.

Just for grins it would be fun to take a blank sheet of paper and list potential reactions and consequences of those reactions to David and Lorrie's quandry at finding their daughter was reading I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.

I believe if we did so we'd find that they acted in a manner that reflects immaturity and paranoia because of their values-prejudices. That would support not only my use of the word misinformation. It also legitimizes my use of the eight year olds father's racist rant as comparable.

One of the great things about America is we have the right to look the fool. I could cut out the hip pockets of my Rustler jeans. It is within my right. The consequences of that action is multifold. The sunburn would make sitting a bear. It would also severely limit my capacity to comfortably carry all the b.s. I do now with fifty percent of my jean storage compartments joining last nights post in the ether world of by by. And let's not forget the ridicule, but I'd still be within my rights as a citizen and the sole owner of my jeans.

And life isn't fair. Jessica Simpson could cut the pockets out of her jeans and start a whole new fad. She wouldn't be inconvenienced by the loss of pockets because she has people. When you have people you don't need pockets.

okay guys;

this has got to be bible girls husband on this video.

jack jett

Thank you Jack for the link to the video. The first time I listened to it I wanted to reach into the flat screen and slap the beJezzuz out of Donny.

After the second time I called in my wife and asked her to listen to the parody about Phelps. I guess you could call it unintended consequences. Not unlike David and Lorrie's actions in Julie's blog.

I think you're wrong about Donny being Julie's husband though. My speculation of Mr Julie would be him being more like Stedman.

Of course we must discriminate what is read in the classroom, and of course the parents have a say in what it is.

This is why public schools are doomed...our culture is too multicultural. In another few generations we will have splintered into separate cultures, and thank goodness.

The comments here, and the article above, are (in the words of Mark Shea) reason 35394323 to homeschool. A large chunk of parents who are serious about their child's education simply are leaving the mess behind.

Comment by M_David

You just explained why I'm against vouchers and home schooling.

It's kinda sorta along the same lines of why I'm for the military draft.

I believe things happen when everyone has a dawg in the fight.

The biggest reason I'm against home schooling is we lose the most involved parents from the system. That's almost irreplaceable. It's also a recipe for disaster. Because it reinforces the segmentation or fracturing if you will of our society.

I also disagree with your statement about too much multicultural. I don't believe we can become too mulitcultural. Of course my logic for that is probably why I'm and atheist and believe in evolution.

As more cultures are absorbed into the society we get stronger. All we have to do is look at the history of America. But then Mark doesn't remember his education or at least doesn't act like it. Our strength comes from absorbing all those culturals and keeping the best from each as our own. The very thing will happen with the new cultural inputs.

I find it hilarious that men like Mark get credibility from people's paranoia and lack of understanding that nothing's new under the sun. What's happening now has been happening the whole time we've been a nation. The same concerns have arisen and the same concerns have been proven incidental at best.

Of course ducks like Mark wake up every morning in a brand new world. If they had a medical license we'd call them quacks.

Dad gum it Harvey, now I have this mental image of you with the pockets cut out of the back of your jeans. I think we can both agree that image is pornographic!

I see your point about values and prejudice. Well, one persons value is another person's prejudice and ay, there's the rub.

This is particularly difficult in the highly subjective world of religious belief. I am well aware that at points in history, Christians held their religious prejudice as elements of faith. Their 'values' were rejected by society and even, if I might use this argument, by scripture.

As a point of clarity, is the issue really whether or not a city/school shouldn't hold a discussion about whether it is in a child's best interest to read a certain book, or participate in a certain study? Surely it is. It is within the parents right to disagree and to hold on to the process of that kid's maturity. Here, these two things collided. Is it prejudice that causes this family not to want their daughter to read this book. I submit no. It is their value that their child shouldn't read about some depections of sex and rape. Well, you think, and the community thought they were wrong. I suppose I do as well, but I'm again, not too inclined to second guess them on this one. Perhap it is more a certain naivete about the world, the value that an adolescent girl should maintian a certain innocence longer than society at large says. I say we as a culture, as a part of that multiculturalism you and I both favor, should permit, and perhaps even embrace that difference.

Well, back to the blessing of my work, but first a little lunch, all that talk about jalopenos...

Dad gum it Harvey, now I have this mental image of you with the pockets cut out of the back of your jeans. I think we can both agree that image is pornographic! Bill H.

I THINK NOT!!!! If it wasn't potentially so uncomfortable and most definately inconvenient I'd suggest a more patrotic rather than pornographic appearance. Red (sunburn) white (oops) and blue (Rustlers).

Thank you for the polite and humorous replies. I'm going to go back to work and bait my breath while I wait for Julie's newest episode.

Harvey wrote:
"If you've ever worked in an office you also know that knowledge is a powerful tool for managing others."

Hhhmmmmm... you and I must have worked in different offices. In my experience, offices are not inherently good settings for "knowledge" or "managing others", any more than any other particular setting. An office, like other workplaces - say, a fast food restaurant, machine shop, liquor store, radio station, bookstore, or, for that matter, the public school system - can take valid information and distort and abuse it. Nor is knowledge in and of itself a particularly powerful tool without the maturity and wisdom to properly utilize that knowledge.

I am uncertain of how office work relates to the subject at hand. In any event, you also said:
"Boys need to understand where it stops being sex and becomes violence."
My point is that just because something becomes violent does not mean that it is no longer sexual. It is possible for an action to be both sexual and violent. An action might enter into the realm of violence while still, simultaneously, remaining within the realm of sex.

And by the way, knowledge alone will not set anyone free. If you think you are free because you have lots of facts in your brain, that is an illusion. Freedom comes through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think I understand what Christians intend to mean when they say "Jesus sets you free."

It's a disguised acknowledgement of the causality of the world, and by implication a denial of free will. There's a comforting peace to be gained when you acknowledge your helplessness and just accept things as they are.

It has a eastern-religion quality to it. Peace through acceptance and subjugation to the will of the universe/god. I dig it.

It has a eastern-religion quality to it. Peace through acceptance and subjugation to the will of the universe/god. I dig it.

______

that's the nail on the head.

jej

I believe you're right on brint.

Rebecca, the line about office and knowledge and power was about little people. I'm sure you've worked with them. The ones that had a little knowledge or information and used it like a whip on others.

Knowledge is really a can of worms. You open it up and all of sudden you're smart because you see worms. Before you know it you realize there's more worms than you ever thought possible in the can and you're not so smart because you are the one that opened the can. That's as close as I can get to freedom and JC.

Where's Julie's new column?

My breath's all baited and I'm waiting.

On a similar note I understand the Crappy are biting at Hubbard.

Hmmmm, since Julie is obviously choosing having a life over providing entertainment for her fans I guess I'll have to ask Jack a question.

Jack what's your take on this?

Yeah I know. It's a baaaaad topic to discuss.

Harvey;

While I am not as eloquent with my verbiage as you are, I am equally as passionate.
I don't believe anyone on earth is more qualified to write about a sensitive subject such as child rape than Maya Angelou. I am still distraught over the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl in Iraq by American servicemen and then our government trying to cover it up.
As far as how to properly address sex acts, perhaps these parents should go to the source that they so believe in and fell others should feel the same. For example, in the book of Deuteronomy, one can read about adultery, prostitution, forced sexual slavery, or in the book of Samuel for sexual mutilation, exhibition and public sexual intercourse, and incestuous rape. Maybe they should read the Bible with a case of white out when we are talking about offering daughters to strangers as sexual door prizes, drunken incest and infanticide (big in Texas) and abortion in Genesis. So while I would not condone any child of mine to read Hustler, Screw, or the advertisements in the Dallas Observer, I don't think I would have any problem with them reading any of the works of Maya Angelou. In fact, I would be proud and announce it too the world. While I have no children of my own, I am the Godfather to three.

As far as gay sheep go, I am all for science. While John Cronyn suggests that most gay men have sex with animals, I don't do sheep. I am 50 years old, I barely do at all.

Jack E. Jett

Jack don't sell yourself short. You have word skills to go along with the passion.

If anyone asks you can tell them that a certifiable grandpa believes you'd make a good dad.

The reason I posted that link to you was because I was interested in your feedback on a couple of issues the story raises.

1. How do you feel about the gay and lesbian community attacking the openly gay researcher because they see his research is seeking a way to eliminate homosexuality?

2. How do you feel about science discovering sheep have about an eight percent homosexuality rate?

3. How do you feel normal people should use this information against the arguments of the logically challenged and religiously impaired that attack homosexuality as unnatural?

4. Can you imagine the fun a comedian could have with this information?

Maybe there's more to Jesus using the metaphors of flock and shepard than meets the eye. Since He is God then He surely knew about the no-ewe option and that it was excerised by eight percent of the rams.

Help me out here. We've been given a jewel, we need to polish it.

People get so upset about "other people's kids" behaving badly, but they can't handle it when parent's actually want to parent their children and be the major influence in their CHILD'S life.

Oh Praise.

Thank you.

Libb

"Do you remember the first time you ever came across pornographic images"

Yes. I do. I was six years old. Playboy and Penthouse ruined my childhood and prompted me to hurt a lot of other people.

Now, 33 years after that day I found those magazines in that dumptser I pray for Godss mercy on me and the girls I hurt. But I pray for God's swift justice on Hefner and Guccione.

"(Sister Storch belongs to the Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes. The mission-statement page on their Web site proclaims "Justice, Peace, Ecology." I had to scroll down quite a ways before I found any mention of Sister Storch's husband. You know, that guy — Jesus Christ.)"

Don't criticize my beliefs but I can criticize yours!

Then "when did this become about their religious beliefs" and "He was told that Lorrie and David had enlisted several pastors to speak on their behalf at the meeting. Only one did."

Oh look - they involved a religious leader on their behalf. Where did the committee get the idea that their objections were religiously based? Silly them!