PDA

View Full Version : Parents, know what your child is being taught in school



jesus-disciple
Mar 24th 2008, 08:07 PM
I just read this article but, due to the graphic contents, I'm posting only an excerpt and the URL. You may read the article for yourself. Be mindful, also, that is a requirement in this school.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080310a.html

High School Offers Homosexual Porn, Parents Complain
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 10, 2008

(Editor's Note: This story contains references to graphic material about homosexuality and violence.)

(CNSNews.com) - Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion.

Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed.

How can our children think reverently about anything when their minds are filled with this stuff?

CoffeeBeaned
Mar 24th 2008, 08:12 PM
Wow. That is scary.

daughter
Mar 24th 2008, 08:23 PM
Thank God I found a Christian school for my son to go to. They've been criticised in the national media for firing a teacher who had a sex change, and for refusing to allow homosexual campaigners to do school talks.

You know, there's a spin off show from a kids tv show in the UK called Dr Who. The spin off is called Torchwood, and most kids I know from when I did voluntary work in primary schools were watching it. It features an "omni sexual" man from the future, and has had scenes of graphic sex in it. And I know ten year olds who watch it avidly.

Mercy4Me
Mar 24th 2008, 10:34 PM
It appears that the parents' group succeeded in changing the "requirement" to an "opt-in" on this book, giving the students a choice between this one and another one.

While I didn't dig too deeply to find out anything about either book, it still is appalling to me that such books are in our high schools. I can't imagine what these influences are going to have on future generations...society's future leaders.

BTW, I'm going to move this thread into the "Educating our Children" sub-forum.

jesus-disciple
Mar 24th 2008, 11:07 PM
Thank God I found a Christian school for my son to go to. They've been criticised in the national media for firing a teacher who had a sex change, and for refusing to allow homosexual campaigners to do school talks.

You know, there's a spin off show from a kids tv show in the UK called Dr Who. The spin off is called Torchwood, and most kids I know from when I did voluntary work in primary schools were watching it. It features an "omni sexual" man from the future, and has had scenes of graphic sex in it. And I know ten year olds who watch it avidly.

Thank God for that, daughter. Seems to me the only way to prevent our children from that kind of exposure is homeschooling or Christian schools. But I've recently been reading that California USA is banning homeschooling.

I probably would not have posted the article had it not been for the intensely graphic nature. I was shocked that a school would present that type of explicit verbiage. I know homosexuality is taught in schools, something of which I don't approve, but that language was just horrid

Dr. Who was a cable series here, too. Since I'm not a tv buff, I don't know what it was about.

SammeyDW
Mar 25th 2008, 07:25 AM
Doctor Who IS a cable show here in the US (at least my part of the US).
It's about a time traveling alien that helps others out of mortal danger (while causing some of his own in the process).
The Doctor almost always has a female companion with him.
The Doctor's favorite place is London, England.
It wasn't originally portrayed as there was anything more then friendship between The Doctor and his companions.
But very recently he has had very young (ave is now 25) companions, and has given hints that there maybe something 'off camera'.
Also Doctor Who is NOT a kids show.
Why? It is violent, and while not as 'in your face' s*xually as Torchwood.
It has plenty of subques that I don't think a 10 year old could miss.

daughter
Mar 25th 2008, 07:33 AM
Yes, the new series of Dr Who is very sexualised, and it is watched routinely by children in this country, from about five up. All the boys at my son's primary school watched it. I don't know a single boy who doesn't watch it. I don't know as many girls, because I only have a son, but the show is one of the most popular on television, and is considered "family entertainment." In one episode there was a hint that the Tardis was the star of Bethlehem by the way, and there are quite a few not so subtle attacks on Judeo/Christianity.

Not only are there subliminal heterosexual themes in it, there are now subliminal homosexual themes. And you're right, children do pick up on it.

My ex is a huge Dr Who fan, and I think that he got into it in such a way that it's become an idol. At one time he said he was a born again Christian (I was a witch at the time, and despised him for it.) Now he's got just as many doubts as the rest of the world. He watches science fiction of all sorts, reads horror, particularly Stephen King, and as you can well imagine, doesn't read the Bible.

I'm turning into my Granny, and I know the world will despise me... but I'll say it anyway. Television is designed to draw us away from Christ.

Athanasius
Mar 25th 2008, 01:57 PM
That's absolutely ridiculous. . .

Friend of I AM
Mar 25th 2008, 07:10 PM
I just read this article but, due to the graphic contents, I'm posting only an excerpt and the URL. You may read the article for yourself. Be mindful, also, that is a requirement in this school.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080310a.html

High School Offers Homosexual Porn, Parents Complain
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 10, 2008

(Editor's Note: This story contains references to graphic material about homosexuality and violence.)

(CNSNews.com) - Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion.

Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed.

How can our children think reverently about anything when their minds are filled with this stuff?


One of the teacher's at my son's school actually allowed the kids to go to sites that had links to porn and whatnot. I reported her to the superintendent, and the teacher wasn't reprimanded or anything. They just blamed it on the kids and said it had to do with the filters. From what my son told me, the teacher actually just told the students to "close the links" which popped up to porn. Now I'm not a prude or anything, and I realize kids are going to face stuff like this on the internet someday and need to know how to deal with it...but my kids only in 4th grade. That's a bit early to start letting him go to that stuff. They finally filtered out all of the sites that weren't all that good at the school, but I was told by my son that the teacher then stated to him and other students that "sites had to be filtered because of *blanks*(that's me) Father" real silly stuff. I can really understand why some parents are starting to homeschool their kids. I still don't want my kid homeschooled though, he needs to interact with all kinds of people to be successful - I just wish these school would have better teachers and administrators.

Friend of I AM
Mar 25th 2008, 07:24 PM
I'm turning into my Granny, and I know the world will despise me... but I'll say it anyway. Television is designed to draw us away from Christ.

Yeah I know the feeling. There's still some good programs out there though. It's just real hard to find them. I find that myself and my son are having to watch a lot of nickelodeon and cartoon network nowadays. We still have to be careful with even some of that stuff, as you stated before - there's soo much subliminal stuff they put on TV. Still, I wouldn't recommend shunning TV completely. It's good for weather, news, and sometimes it's good just for relaxing yourself. One thing I find is that those who don't focus too much on their righteousnous(not their own I mean) are those who are less anxious and worried about themselves and their standing in Christ. Not to say we shouldn't pursue righteousnous, but I guess we need to be careful not to set the standard for righteousnous so high to the point where we essentially set ourselves up for failure in everything that we do.

In Christ,

Stephen

moonglow
Mar 25th 2008, 07:56 PM
One of the teacher's at my son's school actually allowed the kids to go to sites that had links to porn and whatnot. I reported her to the superintendent, and the teacher wasn't reprimanded or anything. They just blamed it on the kids and said it had to do with the filters. From what my son told me, the teacher actually just told the students to "close the links" which popped up to porn. Now I'm not a prude or anything, and I realize kids are going to face stuff like this on the internet someday and need to know how to deal with it...but my kids only in 4th grade. That's a bit early to start letting him go to that stuff. They finally filtered out all of the sites that weren't all that good at the school, but I was told by my son that the teacher then stated to him and other students that "sites had to be filtered because of *blanks*(that's me) Father" real silly stuff. I can really understand why some parents are starting to homeschool their kids. I still don't want my kid homeschooled though, he needs to interact with all kinds of people to be successful - I just wish these school would have better teachers and administrators.

I would have blown...gone straight to the super intendant...we DO pay their wages through our taxes so DO have a say so as to what is being allowed. One time I was helping in my son's fourth grade class and the kids had some free time...they got on the computer and were on youtube watching what appeared to be a cartoon. But I had seen this particular 'cartoon' and it was not made for children. I told the teacher it was not approiate for them...I couldn't really explain why as the kids were right there, but she took my word for it and made them get off that site. She said they had filters on the computer but how do you filter video's that aren't flagged for the being over 18 age group? My son had been show this video by a friend that is how I knew it was not for children...he, not knowing any better, didn't get what was going on but I did and told him not to ever watch that again...that is was bad. Anyway in this case at least the teacher listened and did the right thing...teachers and schools don't want to be sued for emotionally damaging our children and that is usually the fastest way to get through to them by threatening to bring in lawyers...sad it has to come to that though!

God bless

daughter
Mar 25th 2008, 08:11 PM
Very sad indeed.

I have gone into schools regularly over the years, to do cookery demonstrations and school talks on various things. One school in particular, we'd all go in on the same day, all the "speakers", and the kids would from the start of the day to the finish people prosletysing for whatever cause they were involved in.

This school, I'd go three times a year, and so would this homosexual campaigner. He used to complain when we were having tea and biscuits between lessons, that the kids were "homophobic." It was only after I became Christian that I realised how perverse his complaints were.

He was going in to kids between eleven and fourteen years old, promoting a homosexual lifestyle. On one occasion I remember him complaining that a child had asked him, "but how do you and your boyfriend have sex?" And he answered. He said the child looked sick, and the class went "urgh".

Well... of course they did! But then, with the teacher's approval, he told them they were homophobes, and needed to be open minded! He'd just described anal penetration to a group of twelve year olds, how did he expect them to react!

Also, I know of a kid who was desperately unhappy at one of these talks, because he'd been abused by his grandfather. A sad side effect of anal rape is that sometimes the victim of rape (in fact, usually, because of how the male anatomy is designed) will develop an erection.

The poor boy started to think that maybe he was homosexual, that it was his sexuality which attracted his grandfather to him, and that he'd never be able to have a relationship with a woman.

When the boy got upset in one of these school talks, the speaker picked up on his feelings of disgust and nausea, brought about by his own traumatic memories, and started to berate him as a homophobe.

If it hadn't been for an exceptional school councillor, who wasn't pc, and therefore didn't tell the boy he was a repressed homosexual (what many people would say if a kid got up and ran out of the room crying half way through such a talk) then this kid could have ended up even more troubled than he was.

Even so, it took him years to get over what his grandfather did, and these speakers, being given leaway to say what they like, could have ruined him.

jesus-disciple
Mar 26th 2008, 05:32 AM
Oh, that poor child. My heart breaks for our school kids. We try to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord at home, then they are taught contrary in school. No wonder our kids are so confused.

I read your testimony. Powerful! A great testimony.

harry
Apr 3rd 2008, 09:19 AM
there's a lot of disgusting stuff being peddled to kids in the guise of `education`.

i think satan must be relishing the idea of adults corrupting kids with bad ideas.

http://www.waytoshiloh.com/sex_education_and_Bible.html
-----------
there's an irritating article in the uk telegraph about perverse behaviour being inculcated in young minds as `normal`.

anti-homophobia for kids?!

here's the article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/02/nsynod202.xml

daughter
Apr 3rd 2008, 11:19 AM
Good list of references in that Bible study link, thanks Harry.

Befaithful
Apr 3rd 2008, 06:16 PM
It is a brainwashing. Training them up that way. It is mortifying.

Lord I pray you will equip parents with your divine wisdom to war against this reprobate mentality being forced upon the children.:pray:

Anya
Apr 10th 2008, 03:05 AM
Wow, I think im going to be sick >(

harry
Apr 10th 2008, 09:48 AM
...You know, there's a spin off show from a kids tv show in the UK called Dr Who...
----------
:hmm: hope to see you singing along in the audience, daughter, at this almost unbelievably exciting BBC prom:rolleyes: :

Prom 13: Doctor Who Prom

Date Sunday 27 July 2008
Time 11.00am - c1.00pm
Venue ROYAL ALBERT HALL

Tickets £5 & £10
Broadcast To be recorded for BBC One and Live on BBC Radio 3. Available as audio on demand for the following week
http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/2008/whatson/images/freema_agyeman.gif A family concert featuring music from the BBC’s Doctor Who series, and including a specially filmed scene, written by Russell T Davies and starring David Tennant.

There’s also a selection of classical favourites with a strong flavour of time and space. Join Freema Agyeman (aka Martha Jones), and others from the Doctor Who cast, for an intergalactic musical adventure – with a little help from Daleks, Cybermen and other aliens from the series!

Programme to include:

Murray Gold Music from the Doctor Who series (40 mins) Copland Fanfare for the Common Man (3 mins) Holst The Planets - Jupiter (8 mins) Mark-Anthony Turnage The Torino Scale (UK premiere) (4 mins) Wagner Die Walküre – The Ride of the Valkyries (5 mins)
There will be one interval
Freema Agyeman presenter
with Daleks and Cybermen

London Philharmonic Choir
BBC Philharmonic
Ben Foster conductor
Stephen Bell conductor


http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/2008/whatson/2707.shtml

daughter
Apr 10th 2008, 10:10 AM
You might see my son. It's the kind of thing his natural father would take him too. :rolleyes:

Seamus can't bring himself to watch Torchwood, it makes him feel sick, and he's said that he would go off Dr Who completely if they come out with something blatantly anti Christian. Personally, I don't feel that they are far off out and out blasphemy, but we'll see.

harry
Apr 10th 2008, 10:22 AM
i've never seen either series so can't really comment but it beggars belief that people could travel thru space and time in a police box.

breaking news : a galaxy's `just` been zapped - due to the speed of light it must have occurred a long, long time ago.

hope the inhabitants were able to get away.

article/pic below.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/quasars-one-hell-of-a-blast-806295.html

harry
Apr 12th 2008, 11:04 AM
i've discovered a dr who locations site so you can spend your spare time paying pilgimages to them.:hmm:

http://www.doctorwholocations.net

p.s. i was reading a recent copy of the sun newspaper:blush: (which i found discarded on public transport) and found

DOCTOR Who’s openly gay boss Russell T Davies has been nominated for a major prize – from a Right-wing Christian group.

The narrow-minded folk of “American Christian family values” mag Movieguide – which spends its days warning about “immoral” content in TV shows, such as homosexuality – have singled out the Welsh writer for praise...

hope it's ok to post the link. i know the sun is a tawdry publication but now they're reduced the cover price to 20p i see a lot of copies floating around.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article1003111.ece
-------------
sorry i've gone way off topic but to revert to the original thread :

look at the march newsletter for catholic truth scotland which shows how even catholics are now missing the message from God) about kids' sexual development.

[sorry you'll have to click to a PDF document]

Read about the part played by Catholic schools in sexualising Scotland’s children...

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/newsletter.html

kayte
Apr 12th 2008, 04:29 PM
This stuff makes me so angry!
Twelve years ago, my son was in the third grade. One day, his teacher pulled me aside and told me that I should keep him home from school the next day... just call him in 'sick'. She explained that they were going to be having talks, readings and 'special guests' for all the 3rd grade classes, on homosexuality. She was pretty certain that I wouldn't want him there for that. She was terribly upset about it, did not want to do it, but all the teachers were told that if they didn't co-operate and if they told any parents about it, they would be fired on the spot, losing their tenure, pensions, etc. She decided that she wouldn't be able to live with herself if she didn't at least tell the few parents that she knew would be opposed, so she did, but begged us not to say anything or she would lose her job, etc.

The little third graders were told not to tell their mom's and dad's. Isn't that the same thing that a child molester tells a child?!!! :mad::mad::mad: And yes... I do compare the two. These people are molesting our children's hearts and minds... and they're getting away with it! :cry:

Please, if your child is in public school, be aware! They ARE doing this in schools across the nation.

I was told that the plan (12 years ago) was to start that year with the third graders and the following year it would be started in the kindergarten classes.

We pulled our son out and home schooled him. My grandchildren are being home schooled. I pray for those that don't have that option. :cry::pray:

cnw
Apr 12th 2008, 09:28 PM
I still don't want my kid homeschooled though, he needs to interact with all kinds of people to be successful - I just wish these school would have better teachers and administrators.

what a sad thing. if you do some checking around homeschooled kids are becoming some of the most successful people in America. Colleges are excepting them over public schooled kids, they are some of the top kids at the Naval accadamy, they are the number 1 spellers in America, they are filled with better character, study better, and are more "socialized" than public or private schooled kids because they are not only trained to be integrated with their age group, but trained to relate with everyone and every age.
public schooled kids are repeatedly taught things that are contradictory to Scripture. Most of these things parents never hear about because the kids think it isn't important to report. less than 20% of kids who come from Bible based homes will have anything to do with Christ after going through public school and over 1/2 of these kids will be very worldly minded anyway.
Somehow we believe we can undo what is taught. OUr kids are in school for 8 hours a day and then we talk to them how long....on average a parent teaches their kids the word of God .... 2 hours on Sunday-maybe. Even if you do family Bible time every night that is 7 hours (maybe) verses 40 hours....you don't stand a chance!!!

Porn is prevelent in schools in libraries and most schools will not put filters on puters. health books do not do drawings for pictures, but real pictures of human anatomy as early as gradeschool. The entire anatomy!!! Parents are oblivious to so much going on in school and it blows my mind.
Cynth-former public school teacher, private school teacher and now homeschool mom of 8

TheDayIsComing
Apr 12th 2008, 09:51 PM
That's why I plan on homeschooling. Hopefully homeschooling won't get outlawed by then.

theteacherspet
Apr 13th 2008, 02:32 AM
Having seen Angels in America, the HBO version, I'm really surprised that it's allowed in a school setting. It is quite graphic. There isn't anything about it that I'd call educational.

servantsheart
Apr 13th 2008, 03:00 AM
I just read this article but, due to the graphic contents, I'm posting only an excerpt and the URL. You may read the article for yourself. Be mindful, also, that is a requirement in this school.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080310a.html

High School Offers Homosexual Porn, Parents Complain
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 10, 2008

(Editor's Note: This story contains references to graphic material about homosexuality and violence.)

(CNSNews.com) - Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion.

Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed.

How can our children think reverently about anything when their minds are filled with this stuff?
I agree with you completely! WE TOOK GOD OUT OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM..separation of school and state...
PARENTS NEED TO TAKE TIME TO LEARN WHAT THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICT IS TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN...:eek:

kayte
Apr 15th 2008, 07:31 PM
I agree with you completely! WE TOOK GOD OUT OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM..separation of school and state...
PARENTS NEED TO TAKE TIME TO LEARN WHAT THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICT IS TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN...:eek:
I agree, but there is a problem there. The school districts are not disclosing 'all' that they are teaching the kids and they have barred the teachers from telling, under the threat of their jobs. So while you certainly should ask to see all the curriculum and ask lots of questions, that isn't a guarantee that you'll get all the information you're wanting.

I would not have been told about the homosexual indoctrination day if I hadn't volunteered to be the home room mother and spent a good amount of time hanging out at the school, getting to know this teacher and letting her get to know me. I never would have guessed that anything like this was going on at this school.

servantsheart
Apr 16th 2008, 05:21 AM
I agree, but there is a problem there. The school districts are not disclosing 'all' that they are teaching the kids and they have barred the teachers from telling, under the threat of their jobs. So while you certainly should ask to see all the curriculum and ask lots of questions, that isn't a guarantee that you'll get all the information you're wanting.

I would not have been told about the homosexual indoctrination day if I hadn't volunteered to be the home room mother and spent a good amount of time hanging out at the school, getting to know this teacher and letting her get to know me. I never would have guessed that anything like this was going on at this school.
My husband (retired teacher/principal), suggested going through the chain of command: speak with the teacher first and if that does not give you the information you want then go to the principal. Then the superintendent and then the school board.
People in our district pack the school board office when they disagree about something they have heard is going on.
I guess our school district is just small enough and country enough that parents still get in the face of their school board...actually there are a few that I would actually be afraid of (NOT KIDDING)!
Vic also said that the district publishes a curriculum dirctory that describes all the class being taught. If there is a specail concern with a subject (like with the homosexual issue) our school sends letters home to the parents giving them the opportunity to opt out of having their child exposed to it or not.
Don't give up! Get other concerned parents with you ---there is power in numbers!!!
Thanks for sharing...

songladyjenn
May 19th 2008, 04:01 PM
What bothers me is that books like this are permissable but Tom Sawyer isn't because of the "racial issues" WOW

I am SO glad I decided to start home schooling my kids next year (the oldest is going into 8th)

mouse1992
May 30th 2008, 12:29 PM
I just read this article but, due to the graphic contents, I'm posting only an excerpt and the URL. You may read the article for yourself. Be mindful, also, that is a requirement in this school.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080310a.html

High School Offers Homosexual Porn, Parents Complain
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 10, 2008

(Editor's Note: This story contains references to graphic material about homosexuality and violence.)

(CNSNews.com) - Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion.

Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed.

How can our children think reverently about anything when their minds are filled with this stuff?

And yet, those secularists say that teaching youth about God and the Bible are "indoctrination of children". Besides, isn't that a much worse kind of indoctrination? Man, they thought only Christians are capable of doing hypocrisy, look who's talking......

This is what can we call blasphemous teaching, and if this is what they call "freedom of expression", I'd better mute and deaf......

Luke34
May 30th 2008, 02:33 PM
Actually, the most scary thing from the article I thought was this:

The fact that pornographic books can be protected from prosecution if they have "serious literary value" doesn't surprise parents, but it is disappointing.

"These laws need to be changed," Hauser said.
So basically they want laws to be changed so that any book with graphic scenes in it can be treated as common pornography, even if it's a great work of literature, even if it won the Pulitzer and a Tony Award and the New York Drama Critic's Circle Award and was included in Yale professor Harold Bloom's* list of essential works of Western literature? I found that rather disturbing.

*(And not, by the way, because it relates to homosexuality. Bloom believes, indeed sets out in the same book the play is mentioned in, that politics and social issues have no place in the appreciation of literature, and that the goal of reading ought to be aesthetic pleasure, not social enlightenment. Bloom is strongly opposed to literary feminists, Marxists, etc. who attempt to find promotions of their ideas in classic literature, saying that, e.g., Shakespeare is so universal that feminists/Marxists/etc. who look at it from their angle speak only of feminism/Marxism/etc., not of Shakespeare.)

defyinggravity
Jun 1st 2008, 05:42 AM
There is nothing wrong with that book! I've seen parts of the play and it is fantastic.

What about Shakespeare? Shakespeare is renowned worldwide and is a guaranteed part of the curriculum. His plays encompass scenes of sexuality AND extreme violence. Both are prevalent in Titus Andronicus, but yet, Shakespeare remains a staple in schools.

What's important here is to not ban these books from schools, but to teach your kids what's wrong in them. YOU parents should be the ones telling your kids what's morally right in the eyes of the Lord. If you don't want your kids to read it, fine, don't let them, but it's not fair to ban this book to kids who want to read it; who need to read it.

Who would need to read this book you may ask. People who are different than you. People have have AIDS and are homosexuals. What's next, are you going ban homosexuals from schools? That's just absurd.

daughter
Jun 1st 2008, 08:48 AM
Why does anyone NEED to read it? I can only think of one book we need to read.

Athanasius
Jun 1st 2008, 02:54 PM
There is nothing wrong with that book! I've seen parts of the play and it is fantastic.

What about Shakespeare? Shakespeare is renowned worldwide and is a guaranteed part of the curriculum. His plays encompass scenes of sexuality AND extreme violence. Both are prevalent in Titus Andronicus, but yet, Shakespeare remains a staple in schools.

What's important here is to not ban these books from schools, but to teach your kids what's wrong in them. YOU parents should be the ones telling your kids what's morally right in the eyes of the Lord. If you don't want your kids to read it, fine, don't let them, but it's not fair to ban this book to kids who want to read it; who need to read it.

Who would need to read this book you may ask. People who are different than you. People have have AIDS and are homosexuals. What's next, are you going ban homosexuals from schools? That's just absurd.

Welcome to the slippery slope... Don't fall off.

You're comparing Shakespeare to "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes"--did I just quantum leap?! Where's Scott Bakula... But seriously, how could one say the book is appropriate? I don't ever remember reading anything in Shakespeare similar to:

Man: What do you want?
Louis: I want you to f*** me, hurt me, make me bleed.
Man: I want to.
Louis: Yeah?
Man: I want to hurt you.
Louis: F*** me.
Man: Yeah.
Louis: Hard?
Man: Yeah. You been a bad boy?

(They begin to f***.)

(Louis slips his hand down the front of Joe's pants. They embrace more tightly. Louis pulls his hand out, smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell ... they kiss again.)

Interesting, isn't it, that one of the characters is simply named 'man'--no one else caught that, or...? I'm sorry, I'm all for reading the opposing view but some times there is just such a thing as stay away--this is one of those things.

Man: I think it broke. The rubber. You want me to keep going? (Little pause) Pull out? Should I --
Louis: Keep going. Infect me. I don't care. I don't care.

That's right... Let's go and catch the 'bug'; that's what we should be letting our children read? No one "needs" to read this book. It also has nothing to do with people being 'different' or having 'AIDS'.

Sorry, this book is just blatantly inappropriate... At least Shakespeare had class. Kids don't need to know how gay couples have sex; how they relate, etc. Especially since in America it seems to be becoming more and more glorified.

Luke34
Jun 1st 2008, 05:32 PM
Why does anyone NEED to read it? I can only think of one book we need to read.
You need to read certain books so that you can be reasonably literate, well-informed, broad-minded, and knowledgable of culture and art. You don't "need" to read them in the sense that you'll die from terminal illiteracy if you don't, but that's being unneccessarily pedantic about the meaning of "need," especially as it applies to literature.

Luke34
Jun 1st 2008, 05:41 PM
Sorry, this book is just blatantly inappropriate... At least Shakespeare had class. Kids don't need to know how gay couples have sex; how they relate, etc. Especially since in America it seems to be becoming more and more glorified.
You cannot possibly make these statements based on brief two out-of-context and unrepresentative excerpts from a seven-hour play. That's just not possible.
And I don't see why you assume that the overall point of any play which includes homosexuals is "Homosexuality is good." The main themes in this play, according to Sparknotes (I know, but they are good for an overall survey), include stasis vs. change, community (Kushner said the question he was trying to ask was "How broad is a community's embrace. How wide does it reach?") and identity (race, religion, sexual orientation, diseased v. non-diseased, etc.). Just because a play contains gay characters does not mean the inclusion of or relationship between those characters is the point, or that it is automatically an apologia for homosexuality.

Athanasius
Jun 1st 2008, 07:56 PM
You cannot possibly make these statements based on brief two out-of-context and unrepresentative excerpts from a seven-hour play. That's just not possible.

And in what context would their dialog be viewed as appropriate?

daughter
Jun 1st 2008, 08:06 PM
You need to read certain books so that you can be reasonably literate, well-informed, broad-minded, and knowledgable of culture and art. You don't "need" to read them in the sense that you'll die from terminal illiteracy if you don't, but that's being unneccessarily pedantic about the meaning of "need," especially as it applies to literature.
Oh, by the way... in case I'm being accused of illiteracy here... I graduated in English literature with modules in classics, from Oxford University with honours. I really do know how even "great" literature can corrupt. I'm not speaking from ignorance at all.

Luke34
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:10 AM
And in what context would their dialog be viewed as appropriate?
Since when is "appropriateness" the standard for literary quality?

Luke34
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:17 AM
Oh, by the way... in case I'm being accused of illiteracy here... I graduated in English literature with modules in classics, from Oxford University with honours. I really do know how even "great" literature can corrupt. I'm not speaking from ignorance at all.
I didn't mean to imply that you were illiterate, and congratulations on Oxford, by the way. But I did think you were implying an unneccessarily pedantic definition of the word "need": No, we don't "need" to read books like we "need" food and water, or like we "need" God, but in the context of "You need to [verb] this [work of art]" the implication is that you need it not for physical or spiritual health but because it is essential to culture, part of the canon of a certain genre, or simply of extremely high quality. "Need" need not always have the same degree of implied neccessity: "You need to take the antidote now" has a different quality than "You NEED to watch The Office!" (which you do).

daughter
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:35 AM
Okay... I understand that we're using the verb "need" differently from each other. At the moment I'm coming to terms with several things going on societally in the church right now, and it's causing me some stress and grief. One thing that has really dawned on me in recent weeks is that lots of people are attempt to "engage with culture" because we "need" to make the gospel relevant. I had a knee jerk reaction to the word "need" as a result of this, and I really do apologise, since obviously you're not part of the "scene" that's been causing me heart ache. I really do apologise if I appeared snappish or sharp in my previous post.

You make a very interesting point... and one that I think Christians could do well to remember. We need to understand culture. My problem has been that some in my Christian circle in the UK have been saying, "we need to engage with popular culture in order to keep the gospel fresh and relevant."

Of course you know perfectly well how that is wrong... the gospel is ALWAYS relevant, and is fresh in the heart of every convert, ever since the Holy Spirit fell two thousand years ago. It dawned on me listening to my prayer group talk a lot of guff that in their desire to keep the gospel "relevant to culture", they were behaving as though modern culture itself was terribly important.

Culture, in the West, is what has happened since we started rejecting the gospel. I don't quite know how to explain this...

Okay... when Dickens was writing, popular culture was influenced by the Bible. Anyone reading the Christmas Carol in Victorian England could see it was a parable of a sinner confronted with how vile he was, becoming born again. Anyone reading Great Expectations would have the parable of the prodigal son echoing in their memory. Anyone reading Tale of Two Cities would have been in floods of grateful tears at the redemption at the end... because they would have seen Christ's sacrifice echoed in the final scene. In fact, sermons were preached on the works of Dickens. Culture at that point had not yet departed utterly from the teaching of the cross.

You can't say that about modern culture, or about the book in question... which I still don't think anyone "needs" to read, whatever import we give the verb to need. Modern culture has utterly reacted away from the cross, and rather than Christians trying to be "culturally relevant", we need to recognise that modern culture is not "biblically relevant." Christians have come out of every background, every sin, and if we're honest and courageous, we can testify from our own experience, and help save others... we don't need to examine the sins we once loved in order to "understand them." We need to look at where God saved us from, and what He saved us too, and then do His will. We don't need, in any sense, to read homosexual literature to understand that a homosexual is a sinner in need of a saviour.

Before I was Christian I was a witch, and I've had a homosexual relationship, and continued to "lust in my heart" for many years, until I was delivered. I don't need to read lesbian, wiccan or bisexual literature to engage with the culture... I understand it. God saved me, as He saves all of us, to bring Him glory. I won't bring Him glory if I read literature that dishonours Him in an effort to engage with the culture.

The culture is wrong, and it will not stand. In the same way as England has fallen since she kicked God out of the pulpit and the school, so every nation and institution that rejects Him will fall.

It struck me... we're often more upset by the idea of our children reading this stuff, than we are by the fact that God is dishonoured by our allowing this into our schools.

This should be a wake up call, not because homosexuality is promoted in our schools... but because God has been banished for so long that it takes a thing like this to make us sit up and notice. :cry:

Athanasius
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:07 PM
Since when is "appropriateness" the standard for literary quality?

Where did I equate appropriateness with literary quality? I didn't--some of the better [best?] stuff I've seen and read have been completely, completely inappropriate. But again I ask, is this appropriate [for Christians]? Should we ignore this and that because the this and that are part of a great literary work? We don't let our children read and see certain material. We don't let new Christians see and read certain material. Why is it any different for 'mature' Christians? There are surely things we shouldn't see or read, no matter how much of a classic it is, or how 'good' it is.

Luke34
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:48 PM
Okay... I understand that we're using the verb "need" differently from each other. At the moment I'm coming to terms with several things going on societally in the church right now, and it's causing me some stress and grief. One thing that has really dawned on me in recent weeks is that lots of people are attempt to "engage with culture" because we "need" to make the gospel relevant. I had a knee jerk reaction to the word "need" as a result of this, and I really do apologise, since obviously you're not part of the "scene" that's been causing me heart ache. I really do apologise if I appeared snappish or sharp in my previous post.
You didn't, but I would like to point out that that's not what I meant by "culture." I didn't mean "modern culture" or "popular culture," neccessarily, I mean culture by itself. In the sense that great art from Bach, Michaelangelo, and Shakespeare to Stravinsky, Picasso and Conrad (and beyond) is considered essential to Western culture. This may or may not include late-twentieth- and twenty-first-century art, but in my opinion the inclusion of homosexual main characters has absolutely no bearing on whether a work of literature (or cinema, etc.) should be included in the canon.

Luke34
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:54 PM
Where did I equate appropriateness with literary quality? I didn't--some of the better [best?] stuff I've seen and read have been completely, completely inappropriate.
Well then, we agree on that. I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Haunted, and despite the fact that some parts of it are among the most disgusting and "inappropriate" things I've ever read, it's (so far) a great book.


But again I ask, is this appropriate [for Christians]? Should we ignore this and that because the this and that are part of a great literary work? Well, yes, kind of. Not ignore, exactly, but accept them as part of the overall work and as contributers to its impact (if it is truly great, the "inappropriate" parts shouldn't feel forced or out-of-place). You don't have to like or agree with everything in a work of art to appreciate, even love, it.


We don't let our children read and see certain material. We don't let new Christians see and read certain material. Why is it any different for 'mature' Christians? There are surely things we shouldn't see or read, no matter how much of a classic it is, or how 'good' it is. I disagree, for the reasons listed above.

threebigrocks
Jun 4th 2008, 12:55 AM
I would have blown...

I'd have far more than blown. My kids would be pulled from the school system so fast nobody would notice they weren't there for a week.


Well then, we agree on that. I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Haunted, and despite the fact that some parts of it are among the most disgusting and "inappropriate" things I've ever read, it's (so far) a great book.

Well, yes, kind of. Not ignore, exactly, but accept them as part of the overall work and as contributers to its impact (if it is truly great, the "inappropriate" parts shouldn't feel forced or out-of-place). You don't have to like or agree with everything in a work of art to appreciate, even love, it.

I disagree, for the reasons listed above.

And how do you reconcile this with the fact that the reason stuff like this has become a contemporary classic and is now in our schools is because so many people love it and buy it and escaladed it to the status it's become and landed it in front of our children?

It's sick. Plain sick.

Luke34
Jun 4th 2008, 05:10 AM
And how do you reconcile this with the fact that the reason stuff like this has become a contemporary classic and is now in our schools is because so many people love it and buy it and escaladed it to the status it's become and landed it in front of our children?
Wait, reconcile what with that? I said it was possible to love a work of art whose conclusions or content you do not fully agree with. If people love the play, great. I haven't read the play (or, indeed, heard of it before this thread) but if it is as great as many literature-lovers and -experts say, then it deserves its status as a contemporary classic. I'm not really sure what you think I'm saying here.

Athanasius
Jun 4th 2008, 05:19 AM
Well, yes, kind of. Not ignore, exactly, but accept them as part of the overall work and as contributers to its impact (if it is truly great, the "inappropriate" parts shouldn't feel forced or out-of-place). You don't have to like or agree with everything in a work of art to appreciate, even love, it.

It's different when I'm my choice is removed, however.



I disagree, for the reasons listed above.

You disagree with... What? That there are things certain people should not be exposed to? I wouldn't let a new Christian read half the books on religion I own, simply because the arguments against religion [specifically Christianity] are too strong--it would confuse them, potentially destroy their faith. A stronger Christian, I would have no problem lending one of those same books. In the same way I wouldn't let a four year old watch slasher flicks.

There is a lot of garbage out there with some professor backing it that doesn't need to be read. There's a lot of garbage out there under the label 'classic' and 'good' that also doesn't ever need to be read [by most people]. There are just some things that aren't good for us.

threebigrocks
Jun 4th 2008, 01:13 PM
Wait, reconcile what with that? I said it was possible to love a work of art whose conclusions or content you do not fully agree with. If people love the play, great. I haven't read the play (or, indeed, heard of it before this thread) but if it is as great as many literature-lovers and -experts say, then it deserves its status as a contemporary classic. I'm not really sure what you think I'm saying here.

It's the content of the books, nasty and immoral parts included if not the sole reason people will buy it (not saying you), and what attracts them is not just the "wonderful literary content". Popularity and approval of the entire work is given in the awards because people rave about it. Honestly, all that says to me is that people overlook immorality, justifying the whole for a portion.

That's like being on a sinking ship and instead of getting into the lifeboat saying "Oh, what a wonderful pool on the deck!"

songladyjenn
Jun 4th 2008, 03:40 PM
I'd have far more than blown. My kids would be pulled from the school system so fast nobody would notice they weren't there for a week.

http://forum.mambo-foundation.org/images/smilies/amen.gif I second that.




And how do you reconcile this with the fact that the reason stuff like this has become a contemporary classic and is now in our schools is because so many people love it and buy it and escaladed it to the status it's become and landed it in front of our children?

It's sick. Plain sick.http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2950/yesac7.gifI agree. My oldest is 13 and there is no way I would permit him to read this book/play whatever you want to call it. Not just because of the sexual overtones or homosexuality (if it was a man and woman I would still be repulsed) but because of the language. Anything that is THAT vulgar (use of the F word repeatedly for example) I would not, as a parent, permit my children to be exposed to.

There is a difference between art and garbage. Classical nude portraits of women for example, or "David" both are works of art, the prnography you can grab at the local gas station however is NOT art. I would classify this book/play in the later category.

Would I tell others what to do or what to allow their children to be exposed to? Not unless I was asked for my opinion. Society today is besieged with the "shock and awe" factor. This makes what was considered "unacceptable" in terms of art and culture standard and that is just sad.

We as Christians are supposed to be in the world and not of it. I like a good agatha christie murder mystery but then again her books are tastefully done. ;)

threebigrocks
Jun 4th 2008, 04:18 PM
Not just because of the sexual overtones or homosexuality (if it was a man and woman I would still be repulsed) but because of the language. Anything that is THAT vulgar (use of the F word repeatedly for example) I would not, as a parent, permit my children to be exposed to.

It's not just the homosexual issue which is bad enough, but it's the attitude toward another person in a relationship, be it man/woman or whatever. What does that show our kids or anyone? IMHO, and sadly so, the book is a snapshot of the world.

Fiction or not, it's no different than anyother media source in that we must be careful what we put in our heads because eventually that is what we will get out of it.

Ecumaniac
Jun 5th 2008, 10:18 AM
It's interesting that this came up, since only two nights ago I had a long conversation with some Christian friends about what should be considered "appropriate" literature. Unfortunately, I only have about twenty minutes, and am of two minds!

On the one hand, art and literature are often controversial subjects, and mature students should be expected to deal with mature themes. For example: my Christian friend is studying art at university. As part of her course, she needs to draw male and female nudes. Most people now accept that this is appropriate, but not too long ago it was considered entirely unacceptable for a woman to see, and render, the naked body of a man to whom she was not married. In fact, there are still some people who consider this inappropriate in the current time; for example, one person commented that surely she didn't "need" to draw naked men in order to demonstrate artistic talent. She has little patience for such opinions. Essentially, she doesn't need to earn a degree, but since she has embarked upon the course and life drawing is a requirement for passing, it would be churlish to contest it. Life drawing occupies a key place in Western art, and since that is her course of study, she does not mind taking part.

I'm told that some sixth forms (pre-college education, for any Americans) include drawing naked models as part of A-Level Art. As an advanced, optional qualification, it again seems reasonable that students should expect to study the prescribed curriculum. If I understand the situation correctly, the course at issue here is not really a requirement except for those students who plan to study English at a higher level. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If students are not prepared to study literature containing sexual themes, they probably shouldn't be considering any higher-level courses.

Finally, I have not read the book, and it seems foolhardy to jump to conclusions based on twelve lines or so taken out of context. Based on this standard of evidence, one could just as easily take the nastiest bits of the Bible and use that as a sufficient basis to keep Bibles out of schools. However, I'm surprised that anyone believes the excerpts indicate approval of homosexual promiscuity and, in particular, AIDS infection! A few observations make this unlikely. First, as Xel'naga points out, the second party is referred to anonymously as "Man". No intimacy, no connection, just a faceless being by whom Louis wishes to be mistreated. And Louis' response to the prophylactic failure evinces feelings of hopelessness, even worthlessness. My guess is that this entire scene is meant to demonstrate Louis' own self-destructive tendencies, and that context will clearly reveal these as poor choices. If anyone has read (or seen) the play, and can pass comment, please do!


On the other hand: although sex, violence etc. do not necessarily make a book inappropriate reading (cf. the Bible), it would be wise to bear in mind Jesus' remonstrations to keep ourselves pure in thought. Such literature has its place, but I also believe that spiritual edification should come before literary merit. If these books make one think inappropriate thoughts, one should not read them; and if one reads only books dealing with dark and ghastly themes, but never bothers to read the Gospels, I would suggest that one needs to seriously ask where one's loyalties lie.

When I was fifteen, I was reading literature which makes this sort of thing seem tame. One of the best books I read at that age (Tandia, the sequel to The Power of One) contained no fewer than two graphic descriptions of violent sexual activity, of which the first was indubitably rape. However, the nature of the depiction and subsequent resolution left the reader with no doubt whatsoever that this was an abhorrant and detestable act. And, even if it did not, I had enough moral background to immediately recognise the fact. My point is, explicit sexual content does not imply approval of said content. I agree with the premise that parents should be intensely interested in their child's moral development; however, this may include not shielding their older children from unpleasant realities. "Be wise as serpents," as Jesus said.

I really have rambled on for much longer than I planned to! For the next few days I will be here rarely and briefly, so I probably won't be able to answer anyone, but I'll be grateful if anyone can provide additional information about the play or qualification at issue.

Luke34
Jun 5th 2008, 01:06 PM
It's different when I'm my choice is removed, however. I'm not sure giving high school English students a choice about whether they want to read a certain book is a very good idea.


You disagree with... What? That there are things certain people should not be exposed to? I disagree with the statement that there are works of literature that we simply "shouldn't read" only because of the "appropriateness" of their content with no consideration for artistic value. If something in a book offends you, fine, don't read it, but don't claim that anyone else shouldn't read it because of the content that offends you. And it's not possible to accomodate everyone's sensibilities in a high school lit class--if a student is offended by the sexual innuendo in Shakespeare or the racial slurs used in Huckleberry Finn, too bad, they still have to read it.


There is a lot of garbage out there with some professor backing it that doesn't need to be read. There's a lot of garbage out there under the label 'classic' and 'good' that also doesn't ever need to be read [by most people]. There are just some things that aren't good for us. And who determines what's "good for us"? Who decides what is "garbage" and what is "good" literature, especially since the opinions of literary experts apparently don't matter? Who are the privileged few who get to read the "garbage" under the labels "classic" and "good"?

Athanasius
Jun 5th 2008, 01:11 PM
And who determines what's "good for us"? Who decides what is "garbage" and what is "good" literature, especially since the opinions of literary experts apparently don't matter? Who are the privileged few who get to read the "garbage" under the labels "classic" and "good"?

Well there's this compilation of books, they're about 1500 years old...
Anything in the name of art, eh?

Luke34
Jun 5th 2008, 01:19 PM
It's the content of the books, nasty and immoral parts included if not the sole reason people will buy it (not saying you), and what attracts them is not just the "wonderful literary content". Do you realistically believe anyone would bother to buy and read a two-part, seven-hour play just for the gay sex scene? Why would they go to all that trouble, especially when real pornographic "literature" is available so readily, without all that tiresome "plot" and "character development" and "themes" and "other eight hundred pages that aren't gay sex"? Also, do you believe it won the Pulitzer Prize and a Tony Award, etc., because the Pulitzer and Tony committiees are so juvenile they automatically give awards to anything with one paragraph of gay sex in it? And that a Yale professor who doesn't like politically-motivated appreciation of literature calls the play an essential work of Western literature because it has a scene where gay guys have sex while saying "f***"? I think people who buy books solely because of their more "adult" scenes are going to stick with their crappy romance novels, and that literature aficionados who defend the play have probably moved on from the stage when they liked books because they had the f-word in them (i.e., when they were like nine years old).


Popularity and approval of the entire work is given in the awards because people rave about it. Honestly, all that says to me is that people overlook immorality, justifying the whole for a portion. Wouldn't that be "justifying a portion for the whole," because even assuming you objected to the two short, unrepresentative excerpts presented here, you would overlook them because you appreciated the work of literature as a whole? To my mind, the "immorality" of thirty seconds of a seven-hour play is not sufficient to dismiss it out of hand.

Luke34
Jun 5th 2008, 01:24 PM
Well there's this compilation of books, they're about 1500 years old... Wait, what? A group of books written in the year 500...I'm drawing a blank, actually.

Athanasius
Jun 5th 2008, 01:25 PM
Wait, what? A group of books written in the year 500...I'm drawing a blank, actually.

That would be a problem, wouldn't it?

daughter
Jun 5th 2008, 01:26 PM
Moving aside from this continuing debate (which won't be resolved by any side changing their mind) I was surprised to learn that in the UK several schools are starting to teach kids Kabbalah.

Have a look at this article... it's rather frightening that in six central London schools they decided not to inform parents about the "spirituality for kids" lessons... even though when parents discovered what their kids were getting into two families withdrew their children from school.

Check this out.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4067199.ece

I'll wait and see if this ends up replacing "citizenship studies", which replaced religious education. CS studies are now compulsory, even in schools like my son's which has regular bible study and prayer... so other lessons get squeezed out, like PE or foriegn languages.

The idea that a school can just introduce "mystical studies" and not inform kids really scares me!

Luke34
Jun 5th 2008, 01:30 PM
That would be a problem, wouldn't it? I suppose you could mean the Bible, although then I'm mystified by the "they're about 1500 years old" part, unless you mean the Vulgate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate)

Luke34
Jun 5th 2008, 01:35 PM
Moving aside from this continuing debate (which won't be resolved by any side changing their mind) I was surprised to learn that in the UK several schools are starting to teach kids Kabbalah. Just curious, what are the UK laws about religion in public schools?

Athanasius
Jun 5th 2008, 01:38 PM
I suppose you could mean the Bible, although then I'm mystified by the "they're about 1500 years old" part, unless you mean the Vulgate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate)

No, [mostly] the whole [original] thing. But that's actually brought another question into my mind... A few weeks ago we were talking about music and the exploitation of a very 'liberal' lifestyle, often marked by profaning women. In the conversation you completely disowned this genre of music (rap) and proceeded to move on, no second thought.

I'm just wondering, are we working with your idea of what's a classic, good, and acceptable? Or are we working with a consensus?

daughter
Jun 5th 2008, 01:49 PM
Just curious, what are the UK laws about religion in public schools?
England is still officially a Christian country, and all schools are required to have worship times... this is usually once a week, on a Friday morning, at assembly, certainly in primary schools. However, since nobody wants to offend anyone of a minority religion, worship is basically reduced to talking about nice things in a spiritual way, and exorting the children to "try to be good."

Faith schools tend to be the only schools that still have public prayer.

Luke34
Jun 5th 2008, 01:59 PM
No, [mostly] the whole [original] thing. Ok...but it what way is it 1500 years old? Actually, I guess it doesn't matter right now.


I'm just wondering, are we working with your idea of what's a classic, good, and acceptable? Or are we working with a consensus? I'd say that for purposes of discussion right now we should define a "great" work as one which has a pretty much unanimously enthusiastic critical response and, as near as can be determined, holds a universal (or nearly universal) position of acceptance as great literature among serious literary critics, major professors of literature, etc. I don't know to what extent a work can be "classic" when it's only been around a few years. Prizes, etc., would be a bonus, I guess, as would inclusion in an anthology of Western literature or a survey of the canon. None of this is to say that I personally like or have even read the book in question--for example, I didn't like Pride and Prejudice very much, and I haven't read King Lear, but I'm pretty sure everyone would still consider these works "classic."

daughter
Jun 5th 2008, 02:14 PM
Just butting in on the discussion again... the problem with that definition is that it classes "great" according to opinion, rather than the quality of the work. When Shakespeare was alive critical opinion was that he was simply a populist, and other authors (who no-one now remembers) were considered great.

If I say Shakespeare is "great" (and I do) I don't base it on what others say about him, but what he himself said.

I think we need to start a new thread on critical theory and literature! What say ye?

Luke34
Jun 5th 2008, 02:30 PM
If I say Shakespeare is "great" (and I do) I don't base it on what others say about him, but what he himself said.

I think we need to start a new thread on critical theory and literature! What say ye?
Sure, but remember that I'm only doing this for the purposes of this thread. I don't say that critical popularity neccessarily means the work will last, but since it's not possible for us all here to have read every "classic" book (or at least not me), it's the only thing I have to go by.

Athanasius
Jun 5th 2008, 02:36 PM
Ok...but it what way is it 1500 years old? Actually, I guess it doesn't matter right now.

I actually goofed (which is what happens when you don't think before you write, and write while you're still waking up). I meant over a period of 1500 years, not 1500 years ago... For some reason it didn't 'click' ;\



I'd say that for purposes of discussion right now we should define a "great" work as one which has a pretty much unanimously enthusiastic critical response and, as near as can be determined, holds a universal (or nearly universal) position of acceptance as great literature among serious literary critics, major professors of literature, etc. I don't know to what extent a work can be "classic" when it's only been around a few years. Prizes, etc., would be a bonus, I guess, as would inclusion in an anthology of Western literature or a survey of the canon. None of this is to say that I personally like or have even read the book in question--for example, I didn't like Pride and Prejudice very much, and I haven't read King Lear, but I'm pretty sure everyone would still consider these works "classic."

Works well enough, except for what Daughter said.

redeemedbyhim
Jun 7th 2008, 05:16 PM
If we let the teachings of the Bible be our guide, shouldn't we consider the following:

Psalm 101:3
I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.

If a book has only one scene of homosexuality in practice, that would be enough for me to set it aside and more than enough for me to keep it from my children.

Intellectual discusions aside, God's Word is the only truth on the matter, imo.

daughter
Jun 7th 2008, 05:30 PM
Well said indeed...

DanceswithGod
Jun 7th 2008, 07:58 PM
If we let the teachings of the Bible be our guide, shouldn't we consider the following:

Psalm 101:3
I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.

If a book has only one scene of homosexuality in practice, that would be enough for me to set it aside and more than enough for me to keep it from my children.

Intellectual discusions aside, God's Word is the only truth on the matter, imo.

I agree. And there are plenty of other "literary" works to choose from in order to teach our children without exposing them this!

Ashley274
Jun 14th 2008, 02:52 AM
Kids are being exposed to too much crap in school ..I mean not just Christian kids but all kids...I know a Muslin family and they do not like the kids learning about gay things and now the new thing of some schools teaching on gender identity issues ...What is wrong with English...math, science and such ...why go off on PC things. Also now they will be teaching THE BIBLE IS A BOOK OF FICTION and have a text book of something like 300 pages...um Jewish people and Christians will be blown away by this when it comes out

daughter
Jun 14th 2008, 09:40 AM
This began with such a slow infiltration of higher learning... the whole "liberal" school of theology, in the eighteen hundreds. People at the time (like Spurgeon) who warned that this was sinister, and that future generations would suffer because of a lack of standing firm by his generation were laughed at.

Higher criticism took hold, became increasinly popular, the Bible ceased to be believed in as the Word of God, views of Christ changed, and now we're living in a post Christian country, where "liberalism" has become the new orthodoxy, nobody is allowed to dissent, and no child in the regular school system is taught HOW to think anymore, but told WHAT to think. (By liberalism I mean an intellectual system, not a political one.)

To show you how far we're fallen. My son came home from school this week with his English homework.

Draw a cat.

The boy is twelve, highly intelligent, extremely literate, top set in almost everything. How can "draw a cat" be his English homework? He had a book published when he was nine!

When we talk about stories together, we discuss themes, plots, clichés, dialogues, stereotypes, archetypes...

He tells me that the other kids in his class don't understand what these words mean!

When I teach him French or Latin (or when he teaches me Chinese) we discuss grammar.

He tells me that most of the kids in his French class at school don't know what the words "noun/conjunction/adjective/verb/declension/adverb" mean! When they talk about the gender of words in French, the teacher has on one occasion had to give up because the children are making smutty jokes. Twelve years old these kids...

In his RE class (this is a Christian school, with some of the highest standards and results in the county) he is the ONLY child who reads his bible. One boy in his class set fire to his Gideon's Bible, and when he told the other children that his bible was "fire dust" the majority of them laughed. Kids in that class have played football with their bibles - again to the laughter of spectators.

At the moment it seems inevitable for me to send my son to school. If I take him out of school the paper work, the visits from social services, the distrust of me as a widowed Christian mother, would be too much to juggle. I've already had social services around because of Séamus' "absenteeism" (that is staying at home to study when the bullying was so much that he couldn't bear the idea of facing another day.) The fact that my son is way ahead of the other children in almost every academic field should be enough to exonerate me... but I'm still distrusted because my son was home educated for a year in primary school. Only extremists educate their children themselves...

What can we do? I wish I could run away and set up a school where I could teach the children grammar, logic, linguistics, history, philosophy, science and maths... How to read, and write and think. (I'd need someone to help me with the maths, of course!) But I don't have the financial resources, and even if I did... despite my academic qualifications to do so, I believe society wouldn't allow me to.

I see all this as a sign of the times that we're in. The Barbarians are at the gates. :cry:

Joyfilled
Jun 14th 2008, 01:41 PM
I just read this article but, due to the graphic contents, I'm posting only an excerpt and the URL. You may read the article for yourself. Be mindful, also, that is a requirement in this school.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080310a.html

High School Offers Homosexual Porn, Parents Complain
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 10, 2008

(Editor's Note: This story contains references to graphic material about homosexuality and violence.)

(CNSNews.com) - Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion.

Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed.

How can our children think reverently about anything when their minds are filled with this stuff?

They can't. In fact, the whole goal of the secular world which is run by Satan is to keep our children from thinking reverently. Then they wonder why our children have become:

1) Mass murderers
2) Promiscuous (1 in 4 17 year old girls has an std)
3) Drug and alcohol addicted
4) Less literate than in previous generations
5) Greedy
6) Lovers of themselves
7) Boastful
8) disobedient to their parents

Go figure. :rolleyes:

diffangle
Jun 14th 2008, 02:41 PM
I just read this article but, due to the graphic contents, I'm posting only an excerpt and the URL. You may read the article for yourself. Be mindful, also, that is a requirement in this school.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080310a.html

High School Offers Homosexual Porn, Parents Complain
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 10, 2008

(Editor's Note: This story contains references to graphic material about homosexuality and violence.)

(CNSNews.com) - Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion.

Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed.

How can our children think reverently about anything when their minds are filled with this stuff?




You know, there's a spin off show from a kids tv show in the UK called Dr Who. The spin off is called Torchwood, and most kids I know from when I did voluntary work in primary schools were watching it. It features an "omni sexual" man from the future, and has had scenes of graphic sex in it. And I know ten year olds who watch it avidly.
One word... YIKES! :(

diffangle
Jun 14th 2008, 03:17 PM
What do ya'll think about pushing for a seperation of sex and state? :D

redeemedbyhim
Jun 14th 2008, 05:04 PM
What do ya'll think about pushing for a seperation of sex and state? :D

Now, there's a seperation I could go for!

harry
Jun 30th 2009, 12:02 PM
3 radio plays this week :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lg4c7

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lg4nq

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lg4vz

Fenris
Jun 30th 2009, 12:08 PM
How can our children think reverently about anything when their minds are filled with this stuff?
This is one of the reasons why I'm willing to pay so much extra to send my kids to private school.

quiet dove
Jul 1st 2009, 02:18 AM
Guys, this is a pretty old thread, feel free to start another on the topic. And be sure to give plenty of description on the links