According to no less of an authority than Concerned Women For America’s Robert Knight, all but 5 teachers in the San Leandro Unified School District worship the ancient god Baal.
The startling discovery was made when 5 teachers in the school district decided that their religion (apparently not Baal worship) required that their classroom be an unsafe place for gay students. They objected to including a sign in their class which said that “this is a safe place to be who you are.”
According to Knight, the heated debate going on at San Leandro High is not about safety at all. “This is about bullying people and saying you will kneel down and bow to the Baal god of homosexuality — or we’ll make your life very miserable,” he says.
In arguing for an unsafe place for gay students, Bob Knight argues, “What [such policies] produce is intolerance toward anyone who won’t accept homosexuality.”
To put that into English, he’s upset that these policies produce intolerance to the intolerant. It seems to me that if you’re in the “won’t accepting” business, you can’t complain too much about people who won’t accept your “won’t accepting”. I would think you’d feel right at home with intolerance.
But, then again, what do I know? I didn’t even know that Baal was the god of homosexuality.
If they’re objecting to the signs being put up, maybe it’s a good thing they’re at least open about it, cause it sounds like their classrooms aren’t safe spaces.
And c’mon Timothy, are you trying to tell me you never sacrificed a child in the flames of Moloch? What happened to your homo street cred?
Well, Ba’al was a god of fertility, and I think there are some biblical scholars who believe same-sex ritual (male) activity was part of his worship. So I’ll give Knight props for bringing the Old Testament into his every day understanding of Christianity.
The church I used to go to was very serious about interpreting the principles in the Old Testament to today–to be fair, they applied it to heterosexuality as well as homosexuality (more often the former, actually). I think this is just another example of how difficult dialogue is with people who believe the same (infallible, revelatory) principles are holding today as in the time of Elijah, et. al.
That said, I try my hardest to give the benefit of the doubt, etc., but there are times when I just want to say–so, you know I’m gay–do you want to see my altar made of human skulls or what?
Sheesh.
The issue of teachers refusing to post these signs has been talked about at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. I’d recommend reading the comments.
And as an aside… “baal” in Hebrew means “husband”. It also means “owner”. The Hebrew word for “wife” also means simply “woman”.
Not terribly relevant, just thought that bit of linguistic misogyny might amuse some.
And ck, if Ba’al was a god of fertility, wouldn’t that tend to imply heterosexual acts?
If I remember correctly, some religions believe in a inter-gender deity that was between forms or able to change sexes. Others considered intercourse with priests to be a form of intercourse with the deity, regardless of the sex of the participants.
I’m guessing the Baal statement was just hyperbole but you never know. I have to agree with Boo, I think it’s better that these particular teachers leave the signs down. Can you imagine a student talking to one of them about such issues thinking that they were going to be at least helpful if not supportive? If they hold those views, make sure they are not confused with those who don’t – at least not in this situation. That would be just plain cruel (for the student).
David
Baal Schmall.
Unless one is a Biblical scholar one can’t be sure, and even not then, what Baal worship was all about.
The problem is that we are now debating Baal worship and its relationship to present-day gay identity/rights/relationships/lives because Christian rightists drop these terms into the debate.
Whatever Baal worship was it has absolutely nothing to do with us.
This is just more dehumanizing language, creatively used, to deny humanity to glbt people. It was used against the Jews in Germany in the 1920s/1930s.
Off topic- I know she’s a grieving widow and everything, but this is just creepy:
https://www.narth.com/docs/soceulogy.html
It’s even creepier when you consider that this is his fourth, much younger wife.
We have lost the godmother of The Movement. Coretta Scott King passed away quietly last night and when I think of her courage, sacrifice and abiding compassion, the people of CWA and other organizations that seek to smother gay people and awareness of their struggles, I can think of trying hard to emulate our godmother.
She had compassion for gay people as well. Speaking out recently for equal support in marriage, the Boy Scouts, in the military.
She was the exemplar of all of us to strive harder, be engaged and have the courage to stand up for justice for one another.
CWA exemplifies the exact opposite of that. Exemplifies that THEIR strength must be at the expense of gay people and what good things gay people can and do offer all of society.
CWA, FRC, FOTF knows nothing of the struggle for justice and relief from justifying one’s humanity.
They care nothing for education and understanding, indeed…the first priority of evil is to constantly seek pulling down a dark veil. To silence those who know their own truth. To compromise every opportunity to know more and open one’s heart to compassion for those who are different.
CS King, rest in peace dear. And thank you…
“In arguing for an unsafe place for gay students, Bob Knight argues, “What [such policies] produce is intolerance toward anyone who won’t accept homosexuality.””
Good job Timothy, you’re absolutely right, how hypocritical of someone in the “won’t accepting” business to complain about people not accepting his “won’t accepting”. The problem with Bob Knight’s position is that his not accepting homosexuality isn’t just a matter of not accepting it for himself, that would be okay – its a matter of not accepting it in others. His “won’t accepting” homosexuality really means he doesn’t accept other people’s right to self determination. He should be damn glad to have the right to decide for himself let alone for others.
I would demand to know from Robert Knight…in just WHAT WAY is understanding and integration with gay people (something that happens naturally in families) will this make heterosexual life miserable?
In what way is THIS bullying, that heterosexuals to know the truth?
In what way is PREVENTING any kind of violence and slam on straight people?
He acts as if this prevention and education is somehow taking away HIS license to say or do whateve HE wants towards gay people.
When, when, when…will people like Robert Knight ever learn that he has no license regarding gay people whatsoever.
Just cause they read some Bible, too many people think that from there on out, that’s not just the option to BELIEVE what you want-then it has to turn into whatever ACTIONS you want to take.
And the line between believing and taking action against another human being…is so thin, it’s nearly invisible to the Robert Knights of the world.
He’s whining already, as if he’s getting bloodied.
But a gay kid’s blood being shed, well that’s just fine and righterous?
Again…just where is HIS license to PLAY God and judge like God, just because he read about God?
Randi said:
The problem with Bob Knight’s position is that his not accepting homosexuality isn’t just a matter of not accepting it for himself, that would be okay – its a matter of not accepting it in others.
In order to get around this they (ex-gay proponents) try to build a foundation for the idea that “living the gay lifestyle” is incredibly dangerous and so should not be condoned let alone accepted when talking with kids. They develop this further by trying to use some study that determined (loose paraphrase) that adolescents are unable to make decisions about dangerous behavior on their own because of some stage their brains are going through at that time, causing them to choose risky behavior. I found that study last year after reading this nonsense in a Narth article and it was, as you might imagine, distorted heavily for use in this cause. I’m sorry I don’t have it handy right now but I could find it if anyone wants it.
So at this point apparently anything is fair game. Once you can get the phrase “doing it to protect the children” or something to that effect in there, the ends will justify the means every time. It is pathetic that parents either can not or will not accept that there is a difference between teaching kids not to go out and have sex and party at 16 and understanding that, if they are indeed gay, they need to be allowed to know that is not a bad thing. Once and for all, if they are gay, they are gay. It doesn’t wash out.
David
David said: they need to be allowed to know that is not a bad thingI’d agree, with one proviso: it’s not the role of the State to inform people that something is — in religious/theological terms — a “good” or “bad” thing. People can work that out for themself, and you risk taking sides (instead of removing the topic from discussion, in that place).In this case I don’t think the classroom posters make any religious/moral claim. They merely tell everyone that gay kids will be given as much protection and respect as any other student; and that if someone is making your life difficult on that basis then you do have people out there to turn to for support.Factual information — about sexuality, about the lives of gay men and woman, about learning to get along with people you may not agree with — can and should be given in class. (To what depth and to what breadth is where decent and sincere people can and do differ, and this can almost always be amicably resolved.)The real issue for the anti-gay mob is that such information runs smack bang into their desire to presnet gay men and women as unrepentent sinners: who therefore are evil, and therefore must be living wicked, awful, sad lives that revolve around un-natural sex, drugs, promiscuity, lust (not love) and paedophilia.The fact that “our” lives do not resemble what their religious viewpoints would otherwise predict by extension is their problem. Not mine. That’s something they need to reconcile, not me. Alas, far too many — when they cannot have a program that accords with their religion — would rather seek a coerced silence on the subject of sexuallity (with all that entails for a minority) rather than honestly deal with that gap between their religious stance and the doubt that the facts will otherwise cause.There are very strong parallels to the scientific teaching of evolution, geological age of the earth etc etc. The body of science, of course, owes no pandering to any religion; or even the deeply held faiths of any individual scientist. Whether a religion choses to consider and incorporate the knowledge is for them to decide.
Jus fer the record:
I liked my original title for this post better: Teachers Worship Ancient Caananite Diety.
It fit with my “oh my” tabloid style of comment. The new title plays it straight.
Oh, well.
I was thinking about what you said grantdale, and that’s exactly why I’d circulated a form letter that PFLAG had used to address school boards resistant to GSA’s or factual information on homosexuality.
Our last Surgeon General David Satcher had recommended as much. This was during the Clinton Admin.
Just shows how the Bush admin would rather schools get away with ‘abstinence only’ or nothing at all regarding gay people.
Indeed, no one seems to want to admit that sexual orientation as gay is realized VERY early in a young persons life, before actually engaging in sex.
This is one of the first issues in dire need of acknowleging and from there, the reality that homosexuality simply happens, in acquisition and form similar to heterosexuality.
If gay AND straight kids were treated the same with respect to their orientation the same way respect to left handedness and opposite brain favored function was respected, we’d get somewhere.
But, teaching that in a heterosexist society , is like teaching that ALL humans are basically Africans to a committed racist.
grantdale said:
I’d agree, with one proviso: it’s not the role of the State to inform people that something is — in religious/theological terms — a “good” or “bad” thing.
I agree, but the picture of a confused kid talking with one of those teachers who just put that sign up because they had to still makes me queezy.
David
From the San Francisco Chronicle’s Tensions ease over gay posters:The posters, along with faculty training about racism and homophobia, were required in the 2002 settlement of a lawsuit filed by a San Leandro High teacher who was disciplined after teaching those topics in his honors English class in the mid-1990s. The teacher, Karl Debro, was awarded $1.1 million and still teaches at the school.The article also stated: The teachers were shown a movie about Gwen Araujo, the transgender teen from Newark who was killed in 2002, heard the district’s policy on tolerance and then broke into small groups to discuss the poster and how they would talk to their students about it…Furtado, who was Araujo’s freshman geography teacher, said the teen was constantly besieged with verbal abuse, and “every day was a battle” to protect her.It’s one thing to talk in the abstract terms of “culture wars” and “Ba’al,” but it’s quite another to talk about the realities of verbal and physical bullying in our schools, “gay panic” defenses in our courtrooms, and anti-LGBT hate crimes and hate crime killings in our society. In my mind, Knight’s over-the-top commentaries have shown consistently that Knight doesn’t live in the real world.
Autumn,
what the ‘real world’ is is a matter of utmost subjectivity.
Everything outside our immediate sense-impressions is purely a mental construct – RA Wilson uses the term ‘reality tunnel’ to describe how we build a model of the universe in our minds, and everything we experience has to fit through that tunnel. The bigger and more expansive it is, the more of the ‘real’ universe gets in; the smaller and more constricted, the less gets in.
Knight, at the moment, is probably literally incapable of imagining happy, mentally healthy, virtuous gay men and lesbian women, living happy and fulfilling lives. For that matter, he probably can’t imagine atheists or Buddhists doing that either.
I’ve been having a whee of a time over at Perspectives Motionless (DL Foster’s sandbox) discussing this very topic (San Leandro school issue).
I agree, but the picture of a confused kid talking with one of those teachers who just put that sign up because they had to still makes me queezy.
Thank you, David. I felt the exact same way. To make all the teachers use these signs is to invalidate the point of them–it makes it easier for a kid to have a bad experience, and to set them up for disappointment, if they encounter someone who couldn’t or wouldn’t give good advice. I’d even delete the term “safe zone”, and just have something like the words “LGBT-friendly” in rainbow colors or something. Because it’s non-negotiable that all classrooms should be “safe”.
But of course, Robert Knight’s comments were clearly irresponsible and over-the-top, and in no way motivated by any concern for real children and teens!
I saw your posts over there Robert, and you argue well.
But you’re dealing with someone who will just keep stubbornly saying “I think it’s wrong’ and to his mind believes that’s enough.
We as a society are charged with responsibilities to learn. For the sake of many things.
First and foremost to recognize what our differences really are and what they mean.
Especially if violence and extreme isolation target a group.
And the reasons for that violence and isolation are immediately attributable to that belief…to a stereotype, not an actuality that cannot be accepted.
We have been forced as a society to look at when belief interferes with quality of life for the group that did not choose that belief.
Or for those related to them and under their control.
Most ex gays have the attitude that gay people are like bad children that must be controlled, and any sort of laws or programs that educate CONTRA indicated in their belief is wrong, not just the identity of the gay person.
But human beings are naturally curious and follow a predisposition to learn and know more about their natural world.
So for Foster to believe also that it’s wrong or unnecessary to shine a light into the dark corner that is what gay people really are is just too bad.
Teachers are obligated to teach ALL there is to learn, not just what they believe should be learned.
Civil cooperation and integration is the soul of successful societies. The ones constantly focused on religious belief and not progress are lost in time and struggle to comply with the rest of the world’s integration.
Foster only believes this way because so far, he has the full freedom to and demand that he should keep believing this way.
Still, he has the freedom to do as he pleases, shy of sacrificing what another person can do.
Our freedoms don’t rest on how much we can demonstrate our disdain for another group at the expense of who and what they are.
But how much faith we put in treating another group as we expect to be treated and let the results of that speak for itself.
Truthiness Voted 2005 Word of the YearIn its 16th annual words of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted truthiness as the word of the year. Recently popularized on the Colbert Report…truthiness refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true. As Stephen Colbert put it, “I don’t trust books. They’re all fact, no heart.”Robert, in the context of my post, in the context of my post it’s clear that my reference to the ‘real world’ isn’t an esoteric or philosophical perception of what reality is. Although Durkhiem’s definition of a situation obviously applies to Knight’s and my views (“If a situation is perceived at real, it is real in it’s consequences”), the truthiness of Knight’s views are painfully obvious. There are facts in evidence — such as the legal settlement that school district entered into with a current teacher that I referenced. Other information is available to the public. For example, the 2003 survey by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network found that: • 91.5 percent of LGBT students report hearing remarks such as “faggot,” “dyke,” and “that’s so gay” frequently in school;• 64.3 percent said they feel that schools “are not safe for them to attend because of their sexual orientation;”• Students who experience significant harassment have lower grades and are twice as likely to report that they will not attend college.Also, there is the recent Texas study (Jennings: No tolerance for bullying), where students said the types of harassment that occur most frequently in Texas are based on physical appearance (39 percent said this occurs often or very often), their real or perceived sexual orientation (35 percent) and gender expression (29 percent).And there is the recent North Carolina study (Survey Results Demonstrate the Severity of Bullying and Harassment in North Carolina Schools), which found:– Nearly half of all North Carolina students thought that bullying was a somewhat or serious problem in their schools and were 33% more likely to say it was a somewhat or serious problem than students in the nation as a whole (48% vs. 36%).– The most common reasons for bullying and harassment were appearance, actual or perceived sexual orientation, and gender expression. Eight out of ten students were harassed due to appearance, and seven out often were harassed because they were or were thought to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual.– A majority (78%) of North Carolina students reported hearing homophobic remarks such as, “that is so gay” to indicate bad or worthless; and derogatory terms like “faggot” were heard by 84% of students.– Surprisingly, many students heard biased language from school staff. Seventeen percent (17%) of students heard sexist language, 16% heard homophobic remarks, and 12% heard negative religious remarks from teachers and other staff.– Four in ten students who experienced harassment or assault at school did not report it to a teacher, principal or other school staffperson. Of those that did report incidents, less than half (47%) reported that some immediate action was taken by school staff to address the situation.I could go on, but I believe I’ve made the point is that there is a significant body of data collected and processed by scientific method. Knight’s world doesn’t acknowledge that information as real — that’s my ‘why’ as to why I made the ‘real world’ comment regarding Knight.
Autumn – your final sentence
Knight’s world doesn’t acknowledge that information as real — that’s my ‘why’ as to why I made the ‘real world’ comment regarding Knight
is very close to the point I was trying to make in my post above – so we actually agree.
Hope that helps.
Reading this discussion, I was struck by the many and various gulfs that seem so unbridgeable in our societies: then I came across an article on some writings of Jimmy Carter in the ‘New York Review of Books’:
Jimmy Carter and the Culture of Death.
The clarity with which he divides church from state is quite something!In a society which is experiencing the dominance of what is here called ‘the new fundamentalism’, the creation of safe zones is probably going to be less than helpful especially when ‘monitored’ by teachers belonging to this hierarchy:”The marks of this new fundamentalism, according to Carter, are rigidity, self-righteousness, and an eagerness to use compulsion (including political compulsion). Its spokesmen are contemptuous of all who do not agree with them one hundred percent. Pat Robertson, on his 700 Club, typified the new “popes” when he proclaimed: “You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist.”Sorry for the pessimism, but at least there are still voices of his strength out there.
Posted by: Leonard at February 1, 2006 08:01 PM
I’m certainly not defending him, but I do think it might be unfair to use Pat Robertson as an example of anything but Pat Robertson. I know he can be an almost irresistible source of mindless quotes to use against Christians, but most ideological and theological groups have their fringe nuts and I just don’t think it’s useful in most cases to use the comments of any of them to make a point about the whole.
That said, while I would probably agree with some of what Carter says (I haven’t read it) I get the feeling at times that he likes to be contrarian just to get in the news and leave some sort of legacy (though his life after the White House should be enough to do that). He has done some very good things in his life, but I don’t think he was never up to being president. It just wasn’t the job for him, particularly at that very difficult time in our history. I actually felt sorry for him during his speeches because you could see his lack of self-confidence and it seemed to infect the nation. A president can be a lot of things, but he can never lack confidence in his own ability to do the job. No point to be made there, just commentary.
David
I do see your point David and Jayelle. But I don’t think it’s acceptable to allow a teacher to do that.A student may assume that the teacher in the classroom was personally supportive and approach them, and get either an earful or very awful “advice”. That much is true, I agree.But, to allow a teacher to refuse that bland poster is to allow a teacher to publically state that they will not protect some of the students. At the very least, that alone is abusive and is already sending a very clear message to students. And that’s not acceptable from any teacher for any reason. The school can, no doubt, manage the (hopefully) rare occassion when an anti-gay teacher would respond inappropriately; but cannot hope to manage the message that would be sent if some teachers refused the poster.The response wouldn’t even be up for debate if we were talking about anti-semitism. The posters would go everywhere — with no ifs or buts. A teacher who was personally unable to go beyond a certain point as far as ensuring a safe classroom should not be teaching. If they personally cannot offer respectful and supportive advice then they should refer to student to someone who can.Any teacher who dared express their personal anti-gay opinion, or who made other than gay supportive suggestions should be disciplined and/or sent to diversity training. Again, anything less wouldn’t even be open for debate if a Jewish or black student was being similarly targetted.(and I’d include suggesting the student should/could ex-gay themself as an unsupportive position to take. That would be like suggesting a jewish student could convert, or that a black student might like to try a skin lightening product rather than dealing with the abuse itself.)
Oh to live in a world where teachers can be fired for refusing to be supportive of all their students…
While I do think it should be voluntary, those posters can be really useful. I have a safe space poster on my door at work, and I have had people come by for important issues. One student with gay parents was terrified at something another student said in class. Still, I don’t want a teacher to post a poster and not be welcoming to the student. Don’t want false trust.
grantdale,
that last line you posted is exactly why Chad Thompson and anyone who gives him a forum in a school is doing a huge disservice to all kids gaay and straight.
I was encouraged to contact him because a school teacher I had told this to, felt it would be appropriate for the sake of ‘equal consideration’ to have Chad come and speak at the school.
I told this teacher that what Chad has to say has been the traditional…and already proven damaging, response to gay young people.
The suggestion itself that gay kids could change, is beyond rude. It’s cruel and mean in spirit, no matter how it’s put.
More in spirit like suggesting that black kids not be allowed into an AP science and math course because all they are really good for is football, because they lack the intellectual ability for math.
Or that a young girl with a small chest should try plastic surgery and get bigger breasts.
One’s identity, whether physical or mental or spiritual: is OFF LIMITS to suggest anything contraindicated, period.
It’s offensive in the worst way.
These are the three things that are the most deeply ingrained into who we are and will become.
And THIS is what young people should be taught to respect.
It’s frustrating that ONLY gay people are constantly bombarded with this suggestion, not only as individuals, but politically as well.
This is why the Chad Thompson’s of the world are in effect very dangerous at this point in time.
He makes gay people lose credibility in favor of an old perception.
The political atmosphere is too dangerous for gay people to keep perpetuating that gay people CAN change…because then the expectation will be that they SHOULD without questioning why.
When it comes to young people, identity, identifying and BELONGING is tantamount to one’s hopes and we do order our lives around hope.
But that hope shouldn’t stand on the shaky ground that gay people can and must change, but that society can and must shed that expectation.