Homosexual "Mix It Up Day" in Elementary On Up Schools - October 30th

[Elizium23]

So the day has nothing to do with homosexuality. So the SPLC may be capable of good. Planned Parenthood is capable of pap smears and HPV tests, that doesn’t mean we can support them in good conscience.

I think my concerns about this day are less to do with homosexualism and more to do with the promotion of SPLC as a brand name, and the positioning of terms and concepts such as “tolerance” which are foreign to the lexicon of Christians for whom tolerance has entirely different meanings and connotations. The SPLC, in their haste to label groups as haters, becomes a hate group in their own right, throwing labels at anyone that doesn’t agree with their politics. If anyone explains tolerance and exposes hatred for my theoretical future children, it will be me, and the Catholic Church, and other acceptable moral authorities, certainly not the SPLC or GLAAD or CAIR.

The public schools in the USA are clearly a battleground where hearts and minds must be won. The Catholic Church, with our own system of schools, largely opted out of that battleground in favor of educating our own class of children in our own culture. We, and other Christians, allowed public schools to be fully overrun by secularism. Now the state seeks to impose on the Church what we should believe, with the HHS mandate only the latest bump in the road for us.

For me, it is a tragedy that so many people feel the need to homeschool their children, as a secularist, modernist culture invades all our schools. I feel we should reassert our rights as faithful Christian parents. One absolutely non-negotiable right that the Church has given us is the right for parents to educate their children. And this includes being able to find a good school that you can trust to build up your child’s moral character.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

snip

The public schools in the USA are clearly a battleground where hearts and minds must be won. The Catholic Church, with our own system of schools, largely opted out of that battleground in favor of educating our own class of children in our own culture. We, and other Christians, allowed public schools to be fully overrun by secularism. Now the state seeks to impose on the Church what we should believe, with the HHS mandate only the latest bump in the road for us.

For me, it is a tragedy that so many people feel the need to homeschool their children, as a secularist, modernist culture invades all our schools. I feel we should reassert our rights as faithful Christian parents. One absolutely non-negotiable right that the Church has given us is the right for parents to educate their children. And this includes being able to find a good school that you can trust to build up your child’s moral character.

From my experience in Catholic schools (12 years from grammar school to high school), I think that government influence in Catholic schools is fairly minimal. I do recall though that there are certain school in Canada (could also be the US, I don’t recall) where they are forcing Catholic schools to have “Gay Alliance” clubs (not sure what they’re called) in the school. Obviously, this is unacceptable, but I think you may be blowing government influence in Catholic Schools a little out of proportion (though I completely agree about the HHS mandate). We don’t receive government funding, so as far as the government is concerned (at least, right now), we can pretty much teach whatever we’d like.

However, what I do think is the more pressing matter is the level of Catechesis in some Catholic schools. From my experience, in grammar school I could understand having big comic-book-style “religion” books, but in high school, I just find that unacceptable. I craved knowledge of the Church and it’s teachings in high school and I was met with a big picture book that was relatively light on the theology and apologetics. Why can’t we just have studied Augustine’s City of God or through Aquinas’ Summa? Are they afraid to teach us using these wondeful books? Did they think we’re too stupid to comprehend the vast knowledge of the church? I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that I probably learned more about the Church and Her teachings in a few years of lightly reading theology books and from browsing sites like Catholic Answers than I did in 4 years of “religion” classes in high school.

 

[fix]

Not only the AFA. Your links which “spell out exactly what the indoctrination is about” do not such thing.

Your first link:

tolerance.org/therapy-of-lies

… does not even mention this Mix it up event. It addresses reparitive therapy.

The second link:

tolerance.org/blog/princess-boys-and-preempting-stereotypes

…likewise addresses only somthing called “princess boy” and never mentions the event being discussed.

So, before you come out saying I am uninformed about this project, you might want to actually find information on** this** project, not cut and paste other stuff. Now you may believe that the SPLC is incapable of any good because of their rather liberal political leaning. However, I do not buy that. I have seen the Catholic Church far too often be targeted by bigots to become one myself. Yes, I am as far from the SPLC as day is from night, but this even never involved homosexuality. There are too many people out there seeing gays under every rock and at every event.

The links are from the same mix-it-up page. That is the agenda.

Another poster mentioned the example of PP claiming to offer breast exams and such. That is spot on. It is simply the same agenda from a notorious group.

 

[pnewton]

Just out of curiosity, how does sitting with others outside one’s normal social circle contribute to homosexuality? It seems to me that if there is a side of this issue that Jesus would be on it would that of being a friend to the stranger and the outcast.

 

[fix]

Just out of curiosity, how does sitting with others outside one’s normal social circle contribute to homosexuality? It seems to me that if there is a side of this issue that Jesus would be on it would that of being a friend to the stranger and the outcast.

That is not the issue. That is the cover. No one is saying sitting next to some person is wrong.

Just like PP exists to perform abortions while claiming breast exams as a cover so does this extreme group want cover to push their agenda. I cannot see how Jesus would endorse obfuscation and misleading others as a virtue.

You may wonder why the web page of mix-it-up day has sections that contain the links I posted? I mean if it is so innocent then why would they hold these other extreme views?

more views here:

As I told Ms. Costello before she morphed into a conservaphobic bigot, if Mix It Up Day is not about pushing acceptance of homosexuality, all the SPLC has to do is issue a disclaimer: “Mix It Up Day should not be construed as an endorsement of homosexual behavior, or to prohibit any student from raising sincere moral and health concerns about homosexuality.”

But they won’t do it. Why? Because Mix It Up Day is in fact about normalizing homosexual behavior and punishing anyone who thinks that’s a bad idea.

 

[Elizium23]

From my experience in Catholic schools (12 years from grammar school to high school), I think that government influence in Catholic schools is fairly minimal. I do recall though that there are certain school in Canada (could also be the US, I don’t recall) where they are forcing Catholic schools to have “Gay Alliance” clubs (not sure what they’re called) in the school. Obviously, this is unacceptable, but I think you may be blowing government influence in Catholic Schools a little out of proportion (though I completely agree about the HHS mandate). We don’t receive government funding, so as far as the government is concerned (at least, right now), we can pretty much teach whatever we’d like.

However, what I do think is the more pressing matter is the level of Catechesis in some Catholic schools. From my experience, in grammar school I could understand having big comic-book-style “religion” books, but in high school, I just find that unacceptable. I craved knowledge of the Church and it’s teachings in high school and I was met with a big picture book that was relatively light on the theology and apologetics. Why can’t we just have studied Augustine’s City of God or through Aquinas’ Summa? Are they afraid to teach us using these wondeful books? Did they think we’re too stupid to comprehend the vast knowledge of the church? I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that I probably learned more about the Church and Her teachings in a few years of lightly reading theology books and from browsing sites like Catholic Answers than I did in 4 years of “religion” classes in high school.

I don’t think I said a peep of anything about government influence in Catholic schools. What I was referring to was mostly the problem of catechesis you expanded on. The poor catechesis and unwillingness of Catholics to stand up for our own faith has led to a dilution of education and infiltration of other values because the schools will accept anyone from any faith, and then those other faiths stridently assert their own beliefs and demand equivalency to the Catholic faith, which should clearly be promoted and defended in Catholic schools as the True Faith. Atheism, secularism and liberalism are religions too, and some of them, particularly “ex-Catholics” and Catholics in Name Only, would like nothing better than to chip away at the faith of Catholics until we have nothing left.

 

[pnewton]

That is not the issue.

Well, as a parent it is for me. If my school does this, I will tell him to participate and sit next to whoever he thinks Jesus would. With all the real and overt issues out this, I simply do not concern myself with guilt by association.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

I don’t think I said a peep of anything about government influence in Catholic schools. What I was referring to was mostly the problem of catechesis you expanded on. The poor catechesis and unwillingness of Catholics to stand up for our own faith has led to a dilution of education and infiltration of other values because the schools will accept anyone from any faith, and then those other faiths stridently assert their own beliefs and demand equivalency to the Catholic faith, which should clearly be promoted and defended in Catholic schools as the True Faith. Atheism, secularism and liberalism are religions too, and some of them, particularly “ex-Catholics” and Catholics in Name Only, would like nothing better than to chip away at the faith of Catholics until we have nothing left.

You seemed to be implying it in your previous post, but if that wasn’t your intention, I apologize. I agree with you though. I did attend a Catholic high school and I knew a few of my friends were outright atheists, but it was only recently that someone I know (who now works at the school in the administrative function) told me that only like half the school is Catholic, according to school records. I was somewhat shocked at this. Now, there weren’t any rumors about a “Gay club” forming, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was one very soon. Ahh well, c’est la vie.

 

[Elizium23]

I am getting the worst pushback on Facebook from some of my so-called high school buddies. My best friend from that four years is still one of my favorite people to hang out with when I go back home, but he is gay, married, a Yogi, and obviously, an ex-Catholic atheist. He posts stuff to his Wall but he doesn’t participate in discussions when I post conservative/Catholic polemics. We are more than polite and civil to each other, and he certainly loves to hear all the Church gossip from me and my mom.

Another friend from high school I didn’t know so well, is my most ardent interlocutor. He follows me around on Facebook, refuting my comments with liberal trash talk. He has insulted me, my faith, my politics, and talked to me as if he is my father. These men both went to the same Catholic boys’ school I did, and look how we turned out.

Then I have my ex-fiancée. We broke up for unrelated reasons, but in the four years since, we have slowly realized that we are light-years apart in our politics. She is not pro-life - I don’t know if she would personally have an abortion, but she is certainly pro-choice, and calls my position “extremism” and my views on women and homosexuals that I supposedly want them “back in the 18th century in a gilded cage”. She is from Spain, where Christianity is truly weaksauce in the face of secularism and modernism. Her bishop apparently won’t teach any of the hard facts of faith, nor her pastors; despite being a convert to Catholicism, she rejects Church authority and doesn’t care about things like worthily receiving the Eucharist or staying in a state of grace at all. She is currently in a long-distance sexual relationship with a divorced man.

So today we have four Catholics, three from a Catholic school, and one from government schools in a supposedly Catholic country; if our 25% survival rate is indicative of the general trend, and I suspect that that is actually lower… then schools in general have a problem!

 

[Agatha813]

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this is promoting homosexuality. It’s about sitting next to someone that you usually don’t hang out with during lunch. Even if we don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle, it doesn’t mean we have to avoid homosexuals. What kind of Christian would that make you? If you’re going to act like you’re better than them in some way, shape, or form.

 

[waanju]

This dialogue excerpt you posted from somewhere (is it a magazine article?)is to help break sex stereotypes of men and women, yes?
I applaud that, for sure.
It would be silly for people to think or to be taught that boys can’t wear a specific color just because of their gender. From Bloomies to Barneys, the top designers in menswear showcase beautiful pink shirts for men in their windows. Colors were not “attached” to specific genders until the early 1900s, when clothing manufacturers realized they could make more money that way. As a female, if i was told I couldn’t wear blue because it’s a “boy” color, 75 percent of my wardrobe would be gone! (how would I live without blue jeans?)
Telling kids a boy should not wear pink is waaaaay over-micro-managing-over-scrupulosity!

Thanks for posting!

Actually, pink was originally for boys! (watered down manly red). And blue was for girls (because of Mary!) Then, there was a sort of contest between Macy’s and somewhere else and blue boys won.

 

[OLofMtCarmel]

Actually, pink was originally for boys! (watered down manly red). And blue was for girls (because of Mary!) Then, there was a sort of contest between Macy’s and somewhere else and blue boys won.

You’re just making this up, aren’t you?

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

You’re just making this up, aren’t you?

Not sure about the contest but I think it’s more likely that when that babies and young children first began being dressed in colours other than white there wasn’t any meaning associated with any particular colour. I think the pink for girls and blue for boys idea arose fairly recently (1940s perhaps?) and we just assume it’s always been that way.

It also sounds reasonable that ‘pink for girls, blue for boys’ could quite likely have been originally a marketing idea.

 

[mitex]

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this is promoting homosexuality. It’s about sitting next to someone that you usually don’t hang out with during lunch. Even if we don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle, it doesn’t mean we have to avoid homosexuals. What kind of Christian would that make you? If you’re going to act like you’re better than them in some way, shape, or form.

Isn’t Jesus supposed to be sitting next to someone like a homosexual?

Last I checked Jesus was all about sinners! Not the self-righteous who he condemned!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think this group is helming a “gay indoctrination program” trying to “push the homosexual lifestyle”.
They are a nonprofit civil rights organization that fights hate and bigotry, founded by civil rights lawyers in 1971. They teach tolerance.

Here’s more info:
tolerance.org/mix-it-up/what-is-mix

Gender tolerance is one of the activities, you didn’t look close enough, you have to examine the site carefully before you find it. And certainly, not all schools would opt for that activity.

 

[fix]

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this is promoting homosexuality. It’s about sitting next to someone that you usually don’t hang out with during lunch. Even if we don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle, it doesn’t mean we have to avoid homosexuals. What kind of Christian would that make you? If you’re going to act like you’re better than them in some way, shape, or form.

Read the links and the site. It is not simply about sitting next to someone. That is the cover they use. Not unlike claiming Planned Parenthood is about breast cancer screenings.

 

[fix]

Gender tolerance is one of the activities, you didn’t look close enough, you have to examine the site carefully before you find it. And certainly, not all schools would opt for that activity.

Yes, that is right.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Isn’t Jesus supposed to be sitting next to someone like a homosexual?

Last I checked Jesus was all about sinners! Not the self-righteous who he condemned!

Jesus was about sitting with sinners for the purpose of teaching them. Jesus did not just sit with sinners to sip on cocktails all night and hear about their immoral lifestyles in approval.

 

[pnewton]

Jesus was about sitting with sinners for the purpose of teaching them. Jesus did not just sit with sinners to sip on cocktails all night and hear about their immoral lifestyles in approval.

Two thoughts. First, the idea that Jesus purpose for eating with sinners was teaching them is not in the Scripture. in fact, most of his teaching we have is not done in conjunction with a meal. Second, I to not think elementary students are being encourage to sip cocktails all night and talk about immoral lifestyles.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Two thoughts. First, the idea that Jesus purpose for eating with sinners was teaching them is not in the Scripture. in fact, most of his teaching we have is not done in conjunction with a meal. Second, I to not think elementary students are being encourage to sip cocktails all night and talk about immoral lifestyles.

Theyre being coerced into accepting homosexual lifestyles, is what it boils down to.

Secondly about Jesus eating with sinners, anyone can plainly see the pattern as to WHY Jesus ate with sinners, and that was to teach them and teach everyone who condemns them that sinners are still worthy of redemption and respect and love. The SINNER is worthy of that, not their lifestyles. Are you suggesting that Jesus approved of sinful lifestyles instead? Because if you are suggesting that, theres a whole book with a bunch of words in it that go on for pages that say He didnt, called the Bible.