Monday, April 6, 2009

The Tyranny of Liberalism?

Rod Dreher has a very interesting column that mentions a very interesting new book.

Dreher, a recounts a blog debate on the subject of gay marriage and how he and his oppopent talked right past each other. He has since come to realize that "traditionalists" in this country are losing this argument because its terms of debate have shifted beneath them.

A new book called "The Tyranny of Liberalism" explains this phenomenom.

Dreher writes that despite the book's "red-meat title" it is a very thoughtful analysis of how liberalism "has become an immensely powerful social reality," one so dominant "that it has become invisible."

Kalb writes:

"To oppose it in any basic way is to act incomprehensibly, in a way explicable, it is thought, only by reference to irrationality, ignorance or evil. The whole of the nonliberal past is comprehensively blackened. Traditional ways are presented as the simple negation of unquestionable goods liberalism favors."

From the column:
Chief among those goods is the defining idea of modern liberalism, which Kalb calls "equal freedom." That is, liberalism's social goal is to maximize both equality and freedom. How does it propose to do that in a world that is to some degree both unequal and unfree? Through social engineering.

Read the whole thing.

But it reminded of something the my 16-year-old daughter told me about a recent lesson taught in her "health class."

It had to do with a quiz of student attitudes toward homosexuality. One of the questions asked of the teenagers was "Would you let a gay person babysit your children?"

My daughter, being the sophisticated and well-brought young lady that she is, answered in the affirmative. But some of her classmates said no, they wouldn't. And my daughter, and the majority of other students in the class, expressed her disdain for that opinion.

The most interesting thing to me, of course, was that this subject would be raised and this question would be asked in a public high school "health class."

To me it was obvious that the question has nothing to do with health and everything to do with attempting to make sure students know the correct (that is, school-approved) attitude to have when it comes to gay babysitters.

When I asked my daughter later the context in which this all came up, she explained that the class had watched the movie "Philadelphia" and then been asked a series of questions to test their "homophobia."

More and more these days, it seems schools are using Hollywood films to get certain lessons across to students.

The film "Philadelphia" was made not so much to entertain audiences but to "educate" them. To imbue to them the proper attitudes toward the HIV-positive (sympathy) and gay people in general (they're just like "us.")

In the film, Tom Hanks, a gay lawyer, is fired by his law firm because he has AIDS. He sues.

Having watched the movie, a more interesting question to the students might have been "Would you let a person who was HIV-positive babysit your children?" (And how would you feel about being charged with discrimination if you didn't?)

But that's not the sort of question that would get the desired answer now is it?

I am told that the teacher of this class simply asked the questions without giving her opinion one way or another. Nonetheless, her views on the matter were quite clear to the children. The obvious goal was to "teach" the teenagers the correct attitudes to have toward homosexuality; not just tolerance but acceptence. However, it went deeper than that. It was also important for the majority of students to have (and show) disdain for the attitudes of peers who are less accepting and less enthusiastically supportive of the idea of gay babysitters for their (future) children.

What could be a clearer case of liberal social engineering?

It is, of course, fun to imagine some kid standing up and asking his or her teacher "What business is it of yours, my attitude toward gay babysitters?"

But that, of course, didn't happen.

More on this later.

16 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sad that a public school teacher can ask about the homosexual babysitter and not the Christian babysitter. It is all about advancing the agenda.

April 7, 2009 8:38 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK. So lets ask about the Christian baby sitter. Would you want Swagart, or Baker baby sitting your 12 yr. old daughter?
Would you have a problem letting Richard Simmons baby sit that same 12 yr. old daughter?

April 7, 2009 10:23 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess, if you are going to go down this road, another question to ask would be if you would prefer an openly gay person to baby sit your child, or a closeted gay person?

April 8, 2009 10:01 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Ask it, if you like. But not in a 10th-grade "health" class in an attempt to indoctrinate children to a government approved way of thinking.

April 8, 2009 10:13 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A health class is meant to separate health fact from health fiction. The idea that gays are unfit to babysit is health fiction. Not too long ago, people were fighting to keep gays from becoming teachers because they were considered sexual degenerates or mentally unfit or all had AIDS or were all pedophiles. Some people still think this way.
What will you complain about next? Astronomy classes indoctrinating kids to think the Earth revolves around the Sun?
Government should be teaching kids the best science and information available. It sounds like your daughter is getting a good education in the classroom.

April 8, 2009 10:34 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Which brings us back to the question I posed in the post.

Given the fact that the class was shown the film "Philadelphia" wouldn't a more appropriate question be: Would you let a person who was HIV-positive babysit your children? And if you didn't, how would you feel about them suing you for discrimination?"

How's that for "health" question?

Spencerblog daughter reports that the "quiz" in question was meant to test the students' "homophobia."

Is that now considered a mental disorder in the DSM IV?

I say the quiz and the lesson was meant to convince students that there is a correct, government-school-approved attitude for them to have about homosexuality.

That is not a "health" issue. That is political/social indoctrination.

April 8, 2009 10:51 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Anonymous has to be Diano. Gil is right, this is about measuring "homophobia" and demanding tolerance. What if having a homosexual babysitter violated your right to conscience?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

April 8, 2009 10:56 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is mental health covered in health class? And again, this question is somewhat ridiculous to begin with, because many gays are closeted. If I were gay, and acquainted with, or related to certain people on this blog, I would keep my sexuality a private issue.

April 8, 2009 12:07 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

C. Scott,

"What if having a homosexual babysitter violated your right to conscience?"

That is an odd way of putting it.

I wouldn't have any problem letting a gay person babysit my kid because I personally know gay people who I WOULD let babysit my kid.

But would I let someone who was dying of AIDS babysit my kid? Probably not.

It isn't a matter of "conscience." It's a matter of safety, trust and parental responsibility.

The idea that children need to be protected from gay people generally, as a matter of "conscience," strikes me as ludicrous.

That said, who another parent allows to babysit their kids is none of my business. It certainly isn't the business of any public school. Just as it is none of the schools' business to make sure my kids have attitudes of which they politically approve.

Oh yeah, and Anonymous... if you want to keep your "sexuality" private that is more than fine with us.

April 8, 2009 2:56 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Gil:

I poorly worded that - what I meant was what if you were forced to use a homosexual babysitter against your conscience under penalty of a discrimination action. You know what I mean.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

April 9, 2009 8:58 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Hey, you're a lawyer. Write what you mean.

April 9, 2009 9:02 AM 
Anonymous Strath Haven Parent said...

Mr. Spencer,
My daughter is in the same health class. I am well aware of the material and the manner in which it was presented. I am glad that both our daughters are getting a modern education that recognizes information over ignorance.
You appear to be the one promoting indoctrination and the tyranny of discrimination.

As a parent, I am appalled that you would exploit your daughter in your column. She clearly has a far more evolved view than you.

It's a disgrace that you would use your column here to violate her privacy and publicly chastise her position. The kids today are internet savvy, so when something gets posted about them, word travels fast. Try showing your daughter some respect.

April 9, 2009 4:51 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

I would recommend this particular parent read the column before they judge it to be a "disgrace."

But since when is what goes on in a public school health class considered a "private" matter?

As for showing my daughter "respect" - I respect my daughter enough to have shown her the column before it appears in tomorrow's newspaper.

I respect her enough to have asked for her input - which was excellent - and to act on her suggested changes.

As for the this little quiz, what "information" is being passed along to students by asking them their views on gay babysitters?

The answer is none. This was nothing more than an invasive test of their attitudes with the obvious goal of changing them "for the better" if they weren't up to snuff.

Some parents won't appreciate such efforts.

And as someone, who respects OTHER parents' rights to raise their children as THEY see fit, I object to these sort of invasive mind games that can end up pitting students against students or worse, a student against his or her own parents.

If this is a modern education, you can have it.

Finally, my relationship with my daughter is between us, and if I choose to write about it - with her blessing - that too, is between us. It would have been nice if this particular parent could have "respected" that.

But apparently he is more interested in congratulating himself for his own "evolved" views and making sure those those views are imposed on other people's kids.

Talk about disgraceful.

April 9, 2009 7:04 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

To Strath Haven Parent:

Aren't you promoting the same discrimination and indoctrination that you accuse Gil of practicing. Did you know that the "Day of Silence" is fast approaching, and that the District will allow, like last year, teachers to wear rainbow pins to promote the liberal homosexual LGBT agenda?

The district doesn't even allow Christmas, so how is this fair?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

April 10, 2009 10:52 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Shields-
That analogy is valid only if you consider that promoting non-discrimination counts the same as promoting a particular religion.
BTW, Christmas is a paid holiday, this isn't.

April 10, 2009 3:54 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Anon:

Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are promoted in public schools, but they don't even allow any reference to Christmas. Wallingford Swarthmore is not promoting non-discrimination by supporting LGBT, they are promoting the homosexual agenda, to the exclusion of the other viewpoint. I am sure that someone will now post that the other viewpoint can be expressed on homosexuality at WSHS, but the administration will make those kids feel so uncomfortable about it that they will instead keep their mouths shut. WSHS should promote both sides of every debate. The liberal left has done a masterful job of silencing the Church and Christians.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

April 12, 2009 3:30 AM 

Post a Comment

<< Home