Attorney Claims Lesbian Teachers Using Schools to Push Homosexual Lifestyle
By Allie Martin
February 11, 2005
(AgapePress) - A California school district may be taken to court after a group of high school teachers began blatantly promoting homosexuality in their classrooms.
Recently a group of lesbian teachers in the Scotts Valley Unified School District (Santa Cruz County) started hanging pro-homosexual posters in their classrooms, discussing homosexuality in their classrooms, and providing referrals to homosexual and bisexual organizations to students questioning their sexuality. Numerous parents have complained to school officials, who said they would investigate matters. However, no administrative correction has been initiated in response to the complaints.
Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, says the teachers are engaged in a campaign of homosexual indoctrination, and are using anti-harassment laws as a soapbox for state-sponsored endorsement of their lifestyle. And they seem to be getting the support to do so, not only from the district, but from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and area homosexual organizations as well.
"We know it's a very liberal community," Dacus notes, "a very hostile, intolerant community for the rights of parents, and intolerant towards those people of faith who do not openly accept and embrace homosexuality and other forms of deviant lifestyles." Although he says PJI is not really expecting the Santa Cruz County school officials to implement changes, he says his legal group is "hoping they'll take it under serious consideration."
Kentucky
Schools Sued Over Mandatory
Pro-homosexual Diversity Training
(AgapePress) - Feb 18/05 - Parents in a Kentucky school district have filed a lawsuit challenging a mandatory one-hour training video for school children that promotes homosexuality as a safe and healthy lifestyle and homosexual orientation as a fixed and unchangeable trait.
Over the course of a two-year dispute, the American Civil Liberties Union pressured Boyd County school officials into a settlement that requires all middle and high school students in the district to undergo pro-homosexual "diversity training." Several families that do not want their children subjected to the mandatory training have sued the Boyd County Board of Education.
The plaintiffs' attorney, senior legal counsel Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defense Fund, says the school district will not allow parents to opt their children out of the training without a penalty. He contends that the Boyd County school officials have trampled the parents' rights to direct the education of their children.
However, that is only one of the reasons why Theriot feels the schools are on the wrong side of the law. "The second thing," he notes, "is that the school's policies actually prohibit students from even expressing their view that homosexuality is wrong. And, of course, that has serious implications for the free speech rights of the students."
According to the ADF complaint, students are required to undergo the diversity training without expressing any disagreement. As the plaintiff's lawyer points out, the mandatory diversity training hardly teaches diversity when it "puts a gag on students who disagree with homosexual behavior while it actively attempts to change their moral beliefs."
According to Theriot, the mandatory training obviously crosses a constitutional line by denying the students the right to express their personal beliefs.
THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF CHRISTIANITY IN AUSTRALIA?
Two Christian Pastors Found of Guilty of Vilifying
Muslims
By Jeremy Reynalds
Special Correspondent for ASSIST News Service
MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA (ANS) -Dec 17/2004- Two Australian Christian pastors have been found guilty of vilifying Muslims.
The decision was handed down in Melbourne on Dec. 17.
In a press release, Bill Muehlenberg, the National Vice-President of The Australian Family Association said the decision could “could mark the beginning of the end of freedom of speech in Australia, and the official restriction of proclaiming the Christian gospel.”
Judge Higgins said, according to the same release, that the two pastors, Daniel Scot ( a former Muslim), and Danny Nalliah, breached section 8 of Australia’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 which says a person cannot engage in conduct that “incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.”
While exemptions are in place, Muehlenberg said, for “‘any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purposes or any purpose that is in the public interest,’ the judge found that these exceptions did not here apply, because the person’s conduct could ‘not be regarded as reasonable and in good faith.’”
However, Muehlenberg, said, section 9 of the Act says a “‘person's motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.’ If so, how can one be accused of acting in bad faith? Who decides what is reasonable here or unreasonable?”
Higgins said, according to the release, that Scot “failed to differentiate between Muslims throughout the world, that he preached a literal translation of the Quran and of Muslims’ religious practices which were not mainstream.”
Muehlenberg said that “Most Muslims would of course object to this, arguing that they do adhere to a literal understanding and translation of the Quran. And how does a secular judge with no expertise in religion make such decisions, when Islamic scholars themselves are divided on such crucial questions of theology, interpretation and exegesis?”
Much of what Higgins considered offensive, Muehlenberg said, was just quotations from the Quran
(Coran) itself.
“To argue that quoting a religious book makes one guilty of vilification would put 98% of religious discussions out of bounds,” Muehlenberg said. “The truth is, probably the majority of what any Christian has said or written about other faiths will be found to be vilifying, based on the decisions of the judge. Many of us are now liable for jail terms or hefty fines.”
Muehlenberg expressed serious concern about the judge’s decision, saying “This could well be the beginning of a government-sanctioned crackdown on Christianity in Victoria. And if some Federal Labor MP’s have their way, national laws would be introduced as well, threatening believers right across the country. This decision must serve as a wake up call to all believers.”
Religious vilification Bill
Australia - The new amended version of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill was presented to the Victorian Parliament on May 15 2001. Because the original version of the Bill drew an unprecedented storm of protest (some 5500 submissions, almost all of them opposed to the Bill), it was redrafted and re-introduced. The new version is no better than the previous one, and it needs to be rejected altogether as an exercise in social engineering.
About the only major change was the inclusion of the "discussion of religious issues" as an exception. However, as will be seen in a moment, that may not be of much help.
Criticisms of the Bill concern what we objected to in the earlier Bill, and new features of the new version.
As in the old version of the Bill, these are some major objections that can be noted:
1) The Bill considers as irrelevant the "person's motive in engaging in any conduct" of vilification. Thus, no matter how pristine the motive or no matter how well-intentioned one has been, this will not be taken into account.
2) There is still the inherent contradiction to the above point when in the Explanatory Memorandum it says that an "exception is provided for conduct or discussion that is engaged in `reasonably and in good faith'. If motive is not a matter of relevance, how does this proviso fit in? Something done `reasonably and in good faith' sounds like a matter of motive and intent.
3) In the discussion of both racial and religious vilification, a person is not allowed to "engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons". These terms are far too broad and nebulous, open to any manner of subjective interpretations.
For example, people from certain religious groups could easily feel revulsion over pictures of a man dying on a cross. Will an they be allowed to therefore take Christians to court because of this? One could imagine many such examples.
4) A penalty of 6 months imprisonment is still in effect, along with 60 to 300 penalty points (whatever they are).
Objections based on the new version of the Bill include the following:
Background of this story at:
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/australian_courts_&_speech.htm
True Religious Villification: Conversion to Christianity Is a Capital Offense
Core Universal Rights
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one's belief or religion
The right to join together and express one's belief
CLICK HERE TO BE TAKEN TO FREE DOWNLOAD PAGE
YES -
CFREE EBOOK
DOWNLOAD
PAGE