Fundamentalist Nut Tries To Enforce Ignorance in California

[Modern School]

Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, Republican, Costa Mesa, is introducing Assembly Bill 1348 to the California State Legislature. The Parental Oversight and Involvement Act would require schools to “receive affirmative permission from a child’s parents before providing classroom education related to sex, family life, morality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation,” the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday.

The Times did not go into much detail, devoting only a paragraph to the story. Considering that state social studies content standards include world religions, the bill could have far reaching implications that go far beyond health and sex education courses. Biology courses, likewise, routinely cover sexual reproduction and human physiology and anatomy. However, the bill seems most targeted at health education courses that cover human sexuality, reproduction and STDs, as well as tolerance curriculum that is common throughout California. In fact, the bill may have been drafted in retaliation to Mark Leno’s senate bill, SB 48, which would require teachers to discuss the contributions of LGBT historical figures in their curriculum.

While it is not surprising that some parents and fundamentalist residents would be upset over the teaching of tolerance for gays and lesbians, or the discussion of safer sex, there is a far more important public good to be gained by these practices. Ignorance about safer sex practices and pregnancy prevention increase the frequency and the costs of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, costs that all Californians must bear. Ignorance about other religions, cultures, sexual orientations, lifestyles and family structures contribute to fear, misunderstanding, prejudice and abuse.

Also, if parents do not want their children to be taught about their bodies and sexuality at school or to learn about other religions or famous homosexuals in their history classes, parents have the right and the responsibility to remove their children from public schools and either place them in a parochial school or home school them. They should not be allowed to burden schools and society simply to satisfy their fears and prejudices, particularly considering that society will end up bearing much of the future costs caused by the additional unwanted pregnancies, STDs and hate crimes resulting from their ignorance.

Modern School
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/

[JuniperLea]

1. When I was in jr. high over 30 years ago...

A parent could send a note to the school to prevent a child from attending sex education and health classes. This doesn't seem all that drastic to me. I wouldn't want my child taught about religion so I would never put them in a parochial school, and I wouldn't want them taught creationism in public or private school.

Sad as it is, ignorance isn't against the law, and you can't force people to learn or understand anything. There are no thought police... yet. Thankfully.

[Demoiselle]

4. Actually, I'd rather not have my children in school with

children who are forced to be ignorant of sexual matters. It's a matter of health education, really.

[JuniperLea]

10. That's your right... and this is their right...

You can't have one without the other.

[Demoiselle]

12. I appreciate your argument, Juniper...but

where public health is concerned, there are arguments that make sense to me on the other side. For example, the fear that vaccination chemicals could cause autism stopped many people from getting their kids vaccinated. Turned out that the study that started it all was a fraud. We've been told that there's a point where fewer vaccinations in the general populace put the whole population more at risk for contracting the disease. Apparently there's a protective factor that kicks in even for those who don't get their shots as long as most people get theirs. We've reached that unprotected point, according to some public health experts.
Ignorance about preventing std's and pregnancies can be "catching" too, in a population of young people.
I don't want to start a fight here...I just hope you'll give it some thought.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

15. I'll Drink to That.

I pput these parents in the same category as the no-vaxxers. Same ignorance.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Wow.

How can you support this? 'I don't want my kid hearing about Muslims and gays'. That is what this is. Can not teach James Baldwin, got to skip Alexander the Great, half of Shakespeare, all of Tennessee Williams. Susan B Anthony, out of the question, 'gender roles' and all. No teaching biology, science or history, basically, censored reading lists, the works.

[JuniperLea]

9. I never said I supported any of that...

Please don't put words into my mouth. What I do support is a parent's right to dictate what their children are taught.

And as bad as all those things are, there's no law against people being narrow minded. This goes both ways... surely there are things you don't want to be forced to do, or not to do. We should all have that right regardless of how some stupid people will use it... and if we take that right away from them, we must take it away from ourselves as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. You are talking about rights? Can not take what I don't have.

I am forced not to do things, by the faith community's bigotry, every day, double in tax week. The hypocrisy is stunning. A parent should 'dictate' what their child is taught in a public school? Sorry, but no. It is not their right to an education tailored to fit their bigotry and superstitions.
And you said you don't see much wrong with this law, and it would allow the exclusion of everything I listed. I see plenty wrong in your idea that parents can 'dictate' that a school teach racism or whatever they believe. I think homeschooling is good for those who want to teach bullshit to their kids. The public schools should tell the truth not serve ignorance because the ignorant dictate that they do so.

[yardwork]

18. So it would be ok with you to allow parents to exempt their children from learning about Muslims?

[AndyTiedye]

7. This Would Require a Note to GET Sex Education or Health Classes

The default would be the censored fundie version.

[Creideiki]

16. When I was in junior high, I knew which of my teachers was married

We called the women "Mrs." and the guys had wedding bands.

My fourth grade teacher married my principal. (And then she left the school to go to another one after the wedding so that he wouldn't be writing her performance appraisals.)

I'm glad that you aren't breaking any laws by being ignorant, but that doesn't make you any less so.

[yardwork]

17. So if parents don't want their children taught about Martin Luther King Jr. they can send a note

to get their children exempted from being taught African American history? There are a lot of people in this country who would do that, as proven by the racist birther nonsense we've been seeing. Plenty of people all over the country don't believe that their children should have to learn anything about African Americans.

Actually, there are plenty of people who don't want their children to go to school with black children, and would be very happy to be able to write a note exempting them from being in class with African Americans. Seems to me that our country went through this once before...

[DeeJay]

2. Especially the religion and morality part

Good. I like knowing what the schools are teaching my child.

[msongs]

3. not going anywhere nt

[Bluenorthwest]

5. This sounds just insane. For those who want their kids to remain

ignorant. Mansoor is a cop in over his head.

[Sentath]

8. There is no right to ignorance,

not in a functional democracy.

Doesn't work.

[JuniperLea]

11. Oh yes there is...

If you want to force this, you better be ready for something to be forced upon you as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. You miss the point by miles.

And miles. And miles. And miles.

[yardwork]

19. Such as what?