When you ask those who favor the bullying of children to please stand up, no one does – including us. It’s almost silly to have to respond to such an accusation made by Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey in his Sept. 8 Huffington Post column where he claims Focus on the Family is an organization that “stands up for bullying.”
The truth is, we strongly support fair and objective bullying policies that protect every child against bullying of any kind for any reason. We realize this is a serious issue in our schools that too often has tragic consequences and simply must be addressed.
But considering that some 30 percent of American children are involved in bullying today, we feel the most effective way to do this is to develop policies that reflect the widespread nature of the problem, rather than focusing on certain aspects of it. After all, when the Founding Fathers wrote the words “all men are created equal,” they didn’t append a lengthy laundry list singling out certain characteristics as more worthy of protection than others and dividing human beings into competing categories.
Sen. Casey’s criticism of Focus on the Family was directed at our concerns about his bill, the Safe Schools Improvement Act. If passed, this bill would affect most K-12 schools nationwide, mandating that they insert special protections for homosexual categories such as sexual orientation and gender identity into their local policies.
While this might sound nice on the surface, it is problematic for several reasons: First, it represents yet another federal intrusion into an education issue that has traditionally been the domain of local communities. Does the federal government really need to get into the business of micromanaging our neighborhood school policies? Parents and school officials are most qualified to develop good policies based on their communities’ needs.
Second, we’ve carefully documented how similar laws at the state level have already been used to undermine parental rights and marginalize individuals whose viewpoints are perceived as incorrect by homosexual advocacy groups. In Alameda, Calif., for example, a similar law was used to justify mandating homosexuality sensitivity lessons for kids as young as six years old. Alameda parents were told they could not opt their children out for any reason—even if these lessons conflicted with their families’ deeply held religious convictions, or even if they just didn’t think their children were ready to handle controversial sexual topics at such a young age. While that may not be a concern shared by some of you who are reading this, how would you feel if the federal government forced your local schools to teach your children things that violated your deepest moral, ideological or spiritual beliefs—all at taxpayer expense?
I’ve also talked to parents in Illinois, where a law similar to Alameda’s was recently passed, who are at this moment trying to protect their elementary age children from being presented with homosexual-themed books and videos promoted in the name of “safe schools.” In fact, these parents discovered that a “safe schools” training done at their elementary school went so far as to list “family values” and “faith systems” as “perceived obstacles.” As one mom told me, ironically, the school system no longer felt very “safe” for her family’s viewpoint. How is that fair and equitable treatment?
This bill is a vehicle but Sen. Casey isn’t talking about who’s driving the car, which is why we feel it’s only fair to raise the question of how the bill’s biggest promoters plan to use it in our nation’s classroom.
During our recent debate on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” Eliza Byard of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), referred to the Safe Schools Improvement Act as “our bill.” That’s very interesting, considering that as part of its safe schools efforts, GLSEN calls for gay, lesbian and transgender themes to be “fully integrated into curricula across a variety of subject areas and grade levels.” The fact is, not every parent in America wants homosexual issues presented during math and English classes – in the same way not every parent wants religious doctrine presented during public school classes. The difference? We all know the latter is strictly prohibited.
GLSEN also recently issued a press release asking educators to use its recommended book list as assigned “safe” school reading for kids. The problem is, several of the books on this list are not only extremely sexually graphic—but they also contain negative, even mocking, portrayals of people with conservative and faith-based viewpoints. (We’ve documented these concerns at TrueTolerance.org).
It’s unnecessary to politicize the issue in this way—and it goes way beyond bullying prevention into adult identity politics that bring divisiveness into classrooms. Let’s instead take a lesson from the Founding Fathers and unite around what we share in common as Americans – the unshakeable belief that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, no matter what their political subgroup happens to be or how they sexually identify.
Candi Cushman is the education analyst for Focus on the Family and the creator of True Tolerance, an online tool that instructs parents on education law and policy so they can engage their local school officials.
Jim David: How Many Teens Have to Die Before Focus on the Family Gives a Damn?
-- Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out
http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2010/09/11595/
Will "www.truetolerance.org" do anything to help save such innocent young lives? Right now people like Candi Cushman are trying to block anti-bullying efforts that could save kids like Asher Brown. Stop being part of the problem "Focus on the Family!"
If I act according to a strong belief in something that is false (i.e. I step into a crosswalk believing that the oncoming bus will stop) then who will ultimately suffer the consequences? I will suffer, along with my wife, my children, my friends, my family, my workplace, my country, etc. All because I strongly believed in something that turned out to be false.
----------
Which beliefs are good, right, healthy, accurate, true? Those which can be backed up with verifiable *evidence.* Period.
The man who claims to be an expert on changing homosexuals to heterosexuals was caught getting off a plane with a male prostitute he vacationed with, and you're asking me why he's a fraud? Seriously?
------
createdequal: "Please show me some links to the lies about gay people that FOTF tells."
"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage," Dobson said. "It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth." LIE.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/10/25/dobson-gays-will-destroy-the-earth.htm
"The majority of more than 30 years of social-science indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father..." LIE, refuted by the very psychologist whose work James Dobson distorted.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/19/gilligan
More research distortions by FOTF:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2009/06/3207/
In fact, there are so many that a web site has been set up just to set the records straight.
LIARS.
Why is this woman touting her organization's party line on HuffPo? Why is she flinging her supposed credentials, as well as the organization's Founding Fuhrer, James Dobson, as if she has a point to make? We know what that point was as soon as she said her name and that of her employer.
Maybe this is the beginning of a new series of blogs on HuffPo. Next, Sarah Palin on gun control. GWBush on executive privilege. Martha Stewart on deregulation of the stock market. Pope Ratzinger on shielding clergy from prosecution. British Petroleum on the evils of alternative energy.
By the way, Candi, God wanted me to ask you why you aren't listening to him anymore.
Consider this quote from the 14th amendment of the US constitution.
US Constitution Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868 "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The "Safe Schools" proposal by Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey is in DIRECT opposition to the equal protection clause of the constitution. Further, it simply won't help with bullying. If you make a special class of children in the schools you are painting a sign on those children that clearly screams ASSOCIATE WITH ME AT YOUR OWN RISK! The natural response will be to further ostracize the very children that Sen. Cassey claims he is aiming to help.
The proposal by Sen. Casey is both unconstitutional and very likely to make the situation for children that believe themselves to be GLBT worse rather then better.
Care to cite any evidence of this claim?
"The "Safe Schools" proposal by Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey is in DIRECT opposition to the equal protection clause of the constitution."
Really? Please explain how.
You mean characteristics like sexual orientation, I assume, Ms. Cushman. That being the case, I assume that Focus on the Family supports my equal right to marry my same-sex partner.
Just checking.
And considering that gay teenagers are more likely to be bullied and harassed by children from religious-minded and other anti-gay households, what's wrong with that, Miz Candi? Bullying on any issue is un-American, just like Focus on the Family. Send your kids to a religious private school off in a cave somewhere if you don't want them to interact with our gay children. But you'd better tell them never to leave home and not expect to interact with gay or gay-friendly people --- we and our children are NEVER going back to the closet again.
Focus on the Family is LOSING this war.
Yes, they are, which is why they are now playing the victim card. "Waaa! Waaaa! It's discriminatory to take away my right to discriminate!"
Quit pleading "parents' rights"--it's more like bigots rights. What about the right of GLBT kids not to be bullied?
At a higher level America has become a violent bully. We think nothing of anonymously vaporizing bad guys with predator drones--even at the risk of "collateral damage." Focus on the Family wants to deal at the most superficial level with bullying behaviors. Well, guess what? The kids already know that it's wrong. Duh. Ya gotta get at the root causes.
American pop culture celebrates violence as the solution to all problems. We have a superman/superhero/superpower complex. The more we quiver in fear of terrorist threats the more we degenerate into collective insanity. So confining bullying to a limited context may be a feelgood for the FotF folks, but it's not going to address the gay-baiting and hate. Not until we normalize alternative sexual identities. Sorry, but ineffective and superficial efforts are worse than none.
This is the newest gambit in the hater community. When you can't get your own way, then play the victim. GLBT people have a documented history of mistreatment and worse at the hands of homohaters. The only "persecution" or "mistreatment" is that those such as Ms Cushman can no longer lie about us with impunity.
What's next? Removal of all references to race in school anti-discrimination policies because racists' "deepest moral, ideological or spiritual beliefs" will be offended?
You are right...if nothing else, this woman has gall. It is the usual whining that Christians are being persecuted. They are not being persecuted...they are being limited in their ability to persecute and lie about those they don't like.
That's rich coming from someone who, as a conservative Christian, already enjoys the most protected status in American society.
That being said as long as there is going to be public education homosexual children need to be protected. The rules regarding bullying should be simple across all areas of a student's personal life: be supportive or shut up anything else is inappropriate in school. Christian on homosexual bullying is very common because you all spend a great deal of time attacking homosexuals and children have trouble drawing the fine distinctions you would like them too regarding behavior.
In terms of your anti-bullying proposal:
I think you should stop at intentionally causing emotion distress. No reason to weaken for verbal further.
As for article V do you really intend to allow students full first amendment protections like adults? If yes I might go for that compromise even though I don't think it is quite strong enough.
Until she does, I don't think Cushman should be considered as credible in terms of anything having to do with the lgbt community, bullying or otherwise.
Gay people exist. Gay people occur naturally. Kids learning about the existence of gay people is the same as kids learning about the existence of giraffes. Don't worry, you can still teach your kids to hate teh gays just as you could teach them that giraffes don't exist.
"how would you feel if the federal government forced your local schools to teach your children things that violated your deepest moral, ideological or spiritual beliefs—all at taxpayer expense?"
If things like facts get in the way of your religious fantasies then remove your children from public schools that teach tolerance and home school them with your mythologies. If you don't like the public schools that teach facts then join a cult compound where you can teach your children that people rode dinosaurs.