So I took a look. I read SB 777. How odd! I don't find a single phrase in there that bans the use of the terms "mom and dad" or "husband and wife". I don't find a single suggestion that allows boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms. Not a single word. So now I have to dig deeper. What is it in this bill that is so offensive to WorldNetDaily that they feel they need to lie about it? What is it that is so nefarious that it can ban things without mentioning them and support things without a word?
The bill is an anti-discrimination bill. Here is the introduction to the bill:
Existing law states that it is the policy of the state to afford equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public or private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability and prohibits a person from being subjected to discrimination on those bases.One important note. At the end of the introduction, the bill lists a variety of characteristics such as how it will pass (majority vote), if there is financial impact, and what is mandated in terms of local programs. According to the introduction, "State-mandated local program: no." In other words, this is not a mandate; it is a prohibition.
Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of a school district from adopting for use in the public schools any instructional materials that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities, and instructional materials and instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose.
So, what is it that has people's knickers in a twist? The state law already prohibits discrimination in school on the basis of "sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability." SB 777 doesn't change that. I cannot imagine a Christian suggesting it should. "By all means we need to discriminate on the basis of physical disability (or race or ...)." No, I don't see that. So what is SB 777 changing? "This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities, and instructional materials and instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code." This bill changes the existing law by adding "sexual orientation" to the existing list. It is simply banning the schools from "instruction, activities, and instructional materials" that discriminate on a basis that is contrary to the existing penal code.
It is true that the bill, in its definitions, extends protection to "gender" which "includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." In other words, it protects transgender and cross-dressing folks. Would the Christian suggest, "No! They must be discriminated against! They must be banned, beaten, singled out and thrashed!!"? Sadly, I suppose there are those who classify themselves as Christians who would say, "Yes!", but it's not Christian. The Bible recognizes a split between Christianity and government. It also recognizes that, while we are indeed to recognize and avoid sin in the world, it is not our job to judge the world. We are to judge within the Church, but we are to expect the world to be sinful. (See, for instance, 1 Cor. 5: 9-13.) It's not our job to force the world to act according to biblical standards.
Still, nothing in the bill approaches the outlandish accusations like those from WorldNetDaily. Nothing removes "Mom and Dad", "husband and wife", or anything like it. These are equally protected. Teachers may not teach against certain practices, it's true, but I'd much rather that our public school teachers avoided topics like that entirely rather than give their skewed moral perspectives, so I'm in favor of not teaching about it. Nothing in the bill mandates letting boys use girls' restrooms or the like. That's a stretch, a reach, a leap of logic not included in the bill. (Let a school try it and see how long it lasts.)
We live in trying times. Our world is in serious moral decline. There is no doubt. We've surrendered our influence on the nation's morality by abdicating our role as the light of the world, living Christ in front of them. This is all true. But, please, let's not overreacted and create a scene where none is required. Recognize that certain groups will (from both sides) will likely skew the information you get and be ready for it (on both sides). Recognize that it is not our job to make the world more "Christian" because we can't. Pray for those in authority (because we are commanded to do so). Live a life that reflects Christ (because we are commanded to do so). Vote your conscience (because it makes sense). But let's avoid making ourselves look any more foolish than we have to. The Gospel is foolishness enough, isn't it?
7 comments:
I recall way back in 1984, Australia passed the Sex Discrimination Act. This legislation was introduced into Parliament and passed as part of a process set in train because we had ratified a particular UN Convention. The National Party (a farmer's party) and the Assemblies of God campaigned strongly against it. You would have thought that civilisation as we knew it was coming to an end with the passage of the legislation. One of the major things that it did was to protect women from sexual harrassment in the workplace. My view is that this was all tied up with the view that women's place was at home. But then where did their single daughters go to work and become self-supporting? There are people in the world - in your rich country and my rich country - who are in poverty, systemic poverty. There are people in the world dying because they are poor and kept that way by the systems rich countries implement. There are people dying because there is no medical service available to them or, if there is, they can't afford it. Let's get our priorities right: doing justice and loving tenderly.
Yes. We society is going to hell in a hand basket. We let loose the morals and let go the inhibitions, all because it is too difficult or too much trouble to get involved.
It's a shame more parents can't homeschool their children, or send them to private schools that will teach children how the parents want them taught. The public school system should be watched, but it really comes down to parents teaching their children correctly at home. That way their children will see the falsehoods they are taught in school. Too many times we give up our personal responsibility to our children because we think it's our schools' responsibility. School is only there to teach the 3 R's, morality and ethics should come from the home.
David,
Thinking of homeschooling your kids?
If the option is available. If schools become more and more the social indoctrination stations they've been becoming.
I was looking for a post where I could ask about your mom and dad and the rest of your family..I thought this would do. :)
Hope your family is doing well in So. Ca.!
Blessings to you and yours..
Thanks for asking. I saw the pictures from your area; I suspect you were much closer than any of my family. My son is in El Cajon, too deeply entrenched in the city to be close to any fires. My sister and her husband are in Santee. She emailed us all to tell us that they are in no danger. My mom and dad are in Carlsbad. They were given a voluntary evacuation notice, but that was due to bad air quality. They were never in any actual fire danger.
And, of course, the rest of my family in So. Cal. were all farther away from any danger than these were, so my family is doing well in southern California.
Post a Comment