I only have a vague memoery of the "liberal media" it died a long time ago.
I see two things here.
1 a group promoting tolerance for all people.
2 a juxtapositioning of morality and religion as only being the same if people are of the same faith
The pro tolerance group has two words "sexual identity", as part of a MUCH greater concept, TOLERNCE FOR ALL.
But these two words, which could as easily mean you are attracted to short, fat, bald women or Julian Roberts,
JUST as easily as it could mean a same gender attraction, seem to make some people apoplectic with fear and threatened.
It could also mean celebicy to the point of a choice to NOT have a sexual identity. I do not see this promoting anything but tolerance for ALL.
The VAST majority liberals that I have met ,in general, do NOT want to end religion.
Only a very tiny LOUD minority, who are mostly ignored by the mainstream.
But most left of center people do agree that no one should be forced to have to be indoctrinated into another religious philosophy in the public schools.
They ALSO were clearly FOR a teaching of morality in the schools,
as well as in the homes as the parents see fit.
It is a equal conservative distortion from some circles saying this is not the case.
As long as this morale teaching was not directly tied to any one religion specifically. Even better is a comparative method where ALL religions differences in morality are compared for similarities as well as differences.
But NOT advocating one over another.
Too much for most 7 year olds of course in it's deeper meanings,
but useful in understanding others in it's more basic concepts. And laying a basis for future understanding.
And there IS a morale lesson can be learned about tolerance :
Of allowing the differnces between people.
Not advocating being radically different, just not persecuting those who are.
Not pushing people to be different, but just not promoting crualty towards those who are different.
Is it immoral to, dislke what someone does,
but not also make their life a misery because you disapprove?
Is it not morally proper to teach children not to call people hurtful names, or give beatings, because someone is different in some fundamental way?
So I can not agree, that if my particular religion is not taught in schools,
that then no proper morality should be taught there in consequence. Or that if there is moral teachings it is incorect,
because my faith's tenents aren't surrounding it. during the dialog
That makes no sense on a practical level.
To be against tolerance in general, is to be FOR intolerance on some level...
So to say : be tolerant of :
the fat, the intelectually imparied, the black, the oriental, the persians, the short, the sexually different, women, hispanics, foreigners, non wasps, non baptists, non YOU ;
can not be considered as teaching sex education to children except in a myopic word parsing way,
It is saying, don't BE MEAN to people unlike yourself.
Nothing more nothing less.
So let them distibute the video, and let the principals, teachers, and local parents watch the video and discuss the mesaage. Then THEY can decide for themselves if this is appropriate for their locality.
Not some national pre-emptive strike.
I certainly won't say that what would not fly in Dr Dobson's town,
wouldn't fly in my suburban home town.
If your faith is stricter than the morals taught in your school system,
then YOU can teach your faiths increased morality in addition to the schools at home, as you see fit.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 22 January 2005 at 01:21 PM.]</p></FONT>
