A Homeschooler in the Making

[Nineveh]

A woman in Michigan has asked the district where her teenage daughter attends school to exempt the child from all reading assignments that contain obscenity, immorality, and other troubling themes. Now the Christian mom is upset because she feels her teenager is being made to suffer academically and emotionally for a decision that every parent is legally entitled to make.

Vanessa Thrasher is upset that Southfield Public School officials are requiring her 15-year-old daughter, Katherine, to read controversial books such as Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zorah Neale Hurston and Black Boy by Richard Wright -- books that contain objectionable elements such as profanity, sexual content, and denigrating depictions of Christians.

Thrasher wants her daughter to be given alternate reading material in her sophomore honors literature and composition class. The mother says she was told by superintendent Beverley Geltner that teachers are not obligated to answer questions about reading content, and that parents have no say regarding the literature used in the classroom.

The Michigan parent says she was also told by the superintendent if she did not like the curriculum, she should find another school for her child. She was livid that district officials felt within their rights "to tell me that I have no parental rights to be able to direct and guide the education of my daughter," she says.

"So that's the battle that I'm in right now," Thrasher says. She says Katherine, who had previously been an all-A student "has now, because I have refused to allow her to read these vile books, had to watch as her grade has gone to a D-minus. My daughter's self-esteem has dropped, she's just really depressed, doesn't like school, and her whole attitude has changed. And I'm just really in a battle."

Superintendent Geltner was not available for comment. But Thrasher feels the school district definitely has some answering to do -- especially since the parent contends that, under the so-called "Hatch Amendment," children are not required to be involved in school activities that their parents have not reviewed or to which their parents have not consented.

"To me this policy is just useless if you don't have the right to opt the child out without the child being penalized as my child is being penalized," the Michigan mother says. "So I've asked the Board if they would review this policy and amend it accordingly to give parents the rights the State has given as well as the [rights] federal government has given."

Thrasher contends that both U.S. congressional legislation and federal court decisions affirm that parents have primary responsibility for their children's education. However, she says policies allowing moms and dads to opt their children out of certain required assignments are meaningless if the child is penalized for the parents' exercise of their legal prerogatives.cite (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/122005e.asp)

[Poly]

Fortunately my kids go to school where I can be free from all worries of them being exposed to anything I find questionable.

[Free-Agent Smith]

Go homeschooling!!!!!

The mother says she was told by superintendent Beverley Geltner that teachers are not obligated to answer questions about reading content, and that parents have no say regarding the literature used in the classroom.

And thank you Beverly Geltner for helping out homeschoolers with your words of ignorance.

[Nineveh]

Gee...

And I thought the marching orders to parents was "get involved!"

[Poly]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Gee...

And I thought the marching orders to parents was "get involved!"

Get involved....

Translation

Be our puppet on a string and do what we tell you to do, support what we tell you to support and keep your mouth shut when we want to subject your kids to controversial, questionable or immoral ideas.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Poly

Get involved....

Translation

Be our puppet on a string and do what we tell you to do, support what we tell you to support and keep your mouth shut when we want to subject your kids to controversial, questionable or immoral ideas.

LOL yeah... that's about what I get out of a pullik skool teacher saying "get involved".

I remember a few years ago a parent on the board had a problem with a few of the books at a local school... there was a month long back and forth between a teacher and this mother in the local paper. The longer it went the more condescending the teacher got until the mum pulled her sons out of the school.

[Lighthouse]

I'm all for homeschooling, but sheltering your kids only makes them ignorant, and naive which leads to them being taken advantage of.:doh:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by lighthouse
I'm all for homeschooling, but sheltering your kids only makes them ignorant, and naive which leads to them being taken advantage of.:doh: I don't have a problem with that. Just that many more sheep for the fleecing... :chuckle:

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I'm all for homeschooling, but sheltering your kids only makes them ignorant, and naive which leads to them being taken advantage of.:doh:

Wha... HUH?

Where did this comment come from?

[Lighthouse]

I don't see what the point in getting all bent out of shape over what literature your child is reading in school. Instead of being all, "I don't want my kid reading about that," teach your kid about that stuff, and be honest and truthful. Teach them what's right. Then you don't have to worry about outside influences leading them astray. Her daughter is 15, and if she doesn't teach her anything her friends will. And that could go very badly. I've seen the effects on a friend of mine. She's in college and has done numerous things, because she's too naive to know better than to talk to people about sexual things. And I think part of it is curiosity. Her parents didn't teach her anything, and now she's talking to guys she barely knows about things they don't need to know. And all the things she learned about sex when she was in high school, she learned from her classmates... who were already sexually active. Her parents tried to shelter her, for what reason I don't know, and all it did was lead to her seeking answers somewhere else which led to getting more of an asnwer than she needed, and now she seeks gratification whenever and whereever she can. The only thing her parents told her was to not have sex until she was married, and that is about the only thing she hasn't done.:nono:

[firechyld]

First Ninevah agrees with me, now I'm agreeing with lighthouse. Anyone got a temperature reading on hell?

I don't see how it does teenagers any good to completely shelter them from things like literature with controversial themes. Surely it's better to allow them to be exposed to such ideas in a controlled fashion.... such as reading a book about them... and in a situation where parents can impart their views on those topics to the student?

She's not a baby. She's 15 years old. When, exactly, is her mother planning on letting her know that profanity, sexual content and denigrating depictions of Christians exist in the real world? I'd say it's better to let her know that these views exist and how to deal with them... especially since her schooling situation puts her in constant contact with other kids.

[Mr. 5020]

There isn't anything in those books that her daughter doesn't read on the walls in the bathroom. Remember...republic. They elected those school board people, and now they run the show. If she wants to shelter her child from society, I guess homeschooling is the way to go.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I don't see what the point in getting all bent out of shape over what literature your child is reading in school.

Go ahead, no one is stopping you. Personally I do care what my 10 year old daughter get her hands on :)

Instead of being all, "I don't want my kid reading about that," teach your kid about that stuff, and be honest and truthful. Teach them what's right. Then you don't have to worry about outside influences leading them astray. Her daughter is 15, and if she doesn't teach her anything her friends will. And that could go very badly. I've seen the effects on a friend of mine. She's in college and has done numerous things, because she's too naive to know better than to talk to people about sexual things. And I think part of it is curiosity. Her parents didn't teach her anything, and now she's talking to guys she barely knows about things they don't need to know. And all the things she learned about sex when she was in high school, she learned from her classmates... who were already sexually active.

The why is she so naive? Really, you think a school book would help this situation?

Her parents tried to shelter her, for what reason I don't know, and all it did was lead to her seeking answers somewhere else which led to getting more of an asnwer than she needed, and now she seeks gratification whenever and whereever she can. The only thing her parents told her was to not have sex until she was married, and that is about the only thing she hasn't done.:nono:

I don't see why they were trying to shelter her either, they sent her to public school.... ??

[Nineveh]

Personally, I think that gal has every right to train up her child in the way she should go. The public school system is a system designed to train up children in the way the state thinks they should go. There is little room for a parent who actually cares to "get involved", unless that simply means buying all the candybars from the band/athletics/cheer squad.....

I hope this mom sees the benefit of teaching at home soon. It will be a lot more flexible for her family and she can "get involved" :)

[Poly]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I don't see what the point in getting all bent out of shape over what literature your child is reading in school. Instead of being all, "I don't want my kid reading about that," teach your kid about that stuff, and be honest and truthful. Teach them what's right.

Yeah, there's some great advice there. Let kids read any kind of smut they want as long as you let them know that it's wrong. :freak:

[Granite]

"A woman in Michigan has asked the district where her teenage daughter attends school to exempt the child from all reading assignments that contain obscenity, immorality, and other troubling themes. Now the Christian mom is upset because she feels her teenager is being made to suffer academically and emotionally for a decision that every parent is legally entitled to make."

This woman sounds like a collossal prude. Get with the times, lady. "Troubling themes"? For the love of God. "The Diary of Anne Frank" is TROUBLING (especially since WE know how the story ends and Anne, of course, didn't). "To Kill A Mockingbird" is TROUBLING (murder, rape, racism, injustice; giddy up). "1984" is TROUBLING (tyranny, torture, betrayal, defeat). Where do we draw the line?

"Vanessa Thrasher is upset that Southfield Public School officials are requiring her 15-year-old daughter, Katherine, to read controversial books such as Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zorah Neale Hurston and Black Boy by Richard Wright -- books that contain objectionable elements such as profanity, sexual content, and denigrating depictions of Christians."

Oh, heavens. What IS the world coming to. Here's a clue: people swear. People get angry. People have sex. People even--no, really--disagree with Christianity generally and Christians PERSONALLY, from time to time. Keeping your kids under a rock isn't doing them a favor. People like Thrasher need a nice, solid whack upside the head, hopefully to shake clear some of the cobwebs.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Nineveh
Go ahead, no one is stopping you. Personally I do care what my 10 year old daughter get her hands on :)
10 years old? Just the right age for this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671721798/qid=1110903834/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-9795529-5264666?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)!

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Go ahead, no one is stopping you. Personally I do care what my 10 year old daughter get her hands on :)
And you should. The point I was trying to make was not that parents shouldn't care, but that they shouldn't shelter their children either. Make sure you are the one who teaches your children these things, before they get their hands on something else, when you aren't around to stop it. And if you do a good enough job, they won't be interested in whatever else comes along, because they'll already have the truth, and enough sense to stay away from things they don't need.


The why is she so naive? Really, you think a school book would help this situation?
No, I don't think a book would have helped. Her parents didn't do what they should have. That's the problem.


I don't see why they were trying to shelter her either, they sent her to public school.... ??
I don't get it either.

Now, there are other points here. I don't like censorship. Of course, there are times when it is needed, and I'm not against that. But keeping a 15 year old from reading a book, just because it has lanuage you find offensive is fruitless. If you've raised your child right, and they come across something like that, it isn't going to effect them negatively. It might upset them, and they would choose not to read it on their own, but that's as far as it would go. I dealt with a scenario just like that in high school. There was an author that I thought was good, based on one book I had read. So I decided to try another of their books, and the first page had so many cusswords I couldn't tell what was actually going on. I put it down. And I've never sought it out to read again. Why? Because I was raised in such a way that I am able to make right decisions. Not always, but most of the time. This is why seeing violence on TV and in the movies doesn't make me want to kill people.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Poly

Yeah, there's some great advice there. Let kids read any kind of smut they want as long as you let them know that it's wrong. :freak:
Is that what I said? Because I don't remember saying that. Oh, wait, that's because I didn't. If she has raised her child correctly, then her child should be able to make these decisions on her own, and make the correct ones. Fifteen year olds aren't stupid, unless their parents have failed.

[Poly]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Is that what I said? Because I don't remember saying that. Oh, wait, that's because I didn't.
Yes, you did.

Originally posted by lighthouse
I don't see what the point in getting all bent out of shape over what literature your child is reading in school. Instead of being all, "I don't want my kid reading about that," teach your kid about that stuff, and be honest and truthful. Teach them what's right. Then you don't have to worry about outside influences leading them astray.


You suggest that if a parent just teaches his child what is right then this will make it ok for the child to read smut because at least they've been shown that it's wrong.


You don't teach children what is right and then think because you've done this, it's ok to now allow them to do what isn't right. :doh:

[Lighthouse]

That's exactly what I said, Poly. If you've raised the kid right they will make their own decisions. But these books that the mom has a problem with aren't really that massive of an issue. And yet, if the mother has raised the child to think like her, then the child will decide not to read the books on her own when she finds something she objects to. Just like I did. And that book was one I chose to read.

[Poly]

Originally posted by lighthouse

And yet, if the mother has raised the child to think like her, then the child will decide not to read the books on her own when she finds something she objects to. Just like I did. And that book was one I chose to read.


Unless the child has no choice because she is required to read it by her teacher which is what this is all about and which is what you are trying to take the focus off of because you've been exposed for saying something so stupid.

This is so typical of you and it's tiresome. You give knee-jerk reactions to posts without thinking through what you're about to submit and then when what you've said is exposed for being dumb or just plain incorrect you try to go back and dance around the issue. Your arguments are not honest and your debating style is very cheap which tends to get you into a lot of trouble.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Poly

Unless the child has no choice because she is required to read it by her teacher which is what this is all about and which is what you are trying to take the focus off of because you've been exposed for saying something so stupid.

This is so typical of you and it's tiresome. You give knee-jerk reactions to posts without thinking through what you're about to submit and then when what you've said is exposed for being dumb or just plain incorrect you try to go back and dance around the issue. Your arguments are not honest and your debating style is very cheap which tends to get you into a lot of trouble.

Has anyone here other than me read "Black Boy"? Because despite its gritty nature I think it's something students should definitely get into.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Poly

Unless the child has no choice because she is required to read it by her teacher which is what this is all about and which is what you are trying to take the focus off of because you've been exposed for saying something so stupid.

This is so typical of you and it's tiresome. You give knee-jerk reactions to posts without thinking through what you're about to submit and then when what you've said is exposed for being dumb or just plain incorrect you try to go back and dance around the issue. Your arguments are not honest and your debating style is very cheap which tends to get you into a lot of trouble.
:BRAVO:

[Servo]

Originally posted by lighthouse

And you should. The point I was trying to make was not that parents shouldn't care, but that they shouldn't shelter their children either. Make sure you are the one who teaches your children these things, before they get their hands on something else, when you aren't around to stop it. And if you do a good enough job, they won't be interested in whatever else comes along, because they'll already have the truth, and enough sense to stay away from things they don't need.

Parents shouldn't shelter their children? How does that logic work? Children are children and are not ready to make the decisions of an adult. You must raise up a child BEFORE they can make the decisions of an adult.

Originally posted by lighthouse

Now, there are other points here. I don't like censorship. Of course, there are times when it is needed, and I'm not against that. But keeping a 15 year old from reading a book, just because it has lanuage you find offensive is fruitless. If you've raised your child right, and they come across something like that, it isn't going to effect them negatively.

That’s the problem; the child is still being raised! Children coming across offensive material are not immune from the effects of it. They are simply not ready to handle it.

[Granite]

I think every parent will have varying levels of "offense." What one family deems "offensive" might be completely acceptable in another household.

Some might be offended by "Huckleberry Finn," others might be off put by "Catcher In the Rye." Others may not care and see these novels for what they are: outstanding American literature.

Writing off a book because it happens to "trouble" you might be missing the point.

[Eowyn]

Go Poly and Shimei!

It's never something I understood, the sheltering issue. Like Shimei said, why is sheltering your child a bad thing? I hate that word, sheltering, pertaining to homeschooling by the way. "Sheltering" your child isn't not telling them what right and wrong is, just the opposite. But just because you are teaching your children right from wrong doesn't mean you expose them to all perversion in the world and hope they're ok.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by lighthouse

The point I was trying to make was not that parents shouldn't care, but that they shouldn't shelter their children either. Make sure you are the one who teaches your children these things, before they get their hands on something else, when you aren't around to stop it. And if you do a good enough job, they won't be interested in whatever else comes along, because they'll already have the truth, and enough sense to stay away from things they don't need.

I've already taught her that. I don't understand where your comments are coming from though. This girl is attending public school. Obviously her mom hasn't figured out she isn't going to influence the school system or the bilge they pump into kids' heads.

No, I don't think a book would have helped. Her parents didn't do what they should have. That's the problem.

It's too bad they didn't look at the possibilities of homeschooling, which is what I hope the mom in question will do.

I don't get it either.

Now, there are other points here. I don't like censorship. Of course, there are times when it is needed, and I'm not against that. But keeping a 15 year old from reading a book, just because it has lanuage you find offensive is fruitless.

The public school might be able to take this mother's duty away from her, but only 'till she wakes up and starts homeschooling.

If you've raised your child right, and they come across something like that, it isn't going to effect them negatively.

Yes, it will. Even if she knows everything about it. Let me ask you... can you un see or un read or un know something?

I don't want my daughter exposed to certain situations yet. Not in reality, not in print, not in entertainment. She has plenty of time to grow up.

It might upset them, and they would choose not to read it on their own,

She does.

but that's as far as it would go. I dealt with a scenario just like that in high school. There was an author that I thought was good, based on one book I had read. So I decided to try another of their books, and the first page had so many cusswords I couldn't tell what was actually going on. I put it down. And I've never sought it out to read again. Why? Because I was raised in such a way that I am able to make right decisions. Not always, but most of the time. This is why seeing violence on TV and in the movies doesn't make me want to kill people.

Ok great :)

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Gerald

10 years old? Just the right age for this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671721798/qid=1110903834/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-9795529-5264666?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)!

Thanks Gerald...

But she just got a whole set of Hardy Boys for Christmas and I can't get her to stop reading them :)

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Lucky

:BRAVO:

What :lucky: said :)

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Eowyn

Go Poly and Shimei!

It's never something I understood, the sheltering issue. Like Shimei said, why is sheltering you child a bad thing? I hate that word, sheltering, pertaining to homeschooling by the way. "Sheltering" your child isn't not telling them what right and wrong is, just the opposite. But just because you are teaching your children right from wrong doesn't mean you expose them to all perversion in the world and hope they're ok.

What Eowyn said :)

[Granite]

:yawn:

I think part of the misconception is that reading "troubling" literature is tied into a hidden agenda of some kind. The fact is, if a book upsets you, people will find a way to try and censor it away.

I mean, come on, "Black Beauty" has shown up on lists of forbidden books...

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Poly

Unless the child has no choice because she is required to read it by her teacher which is what this is all about and which is what you are trying to take the focus off of because you've been exposed for saying something so stupid.

This is so typical of you and it's tiresome. You give knee-jerk reactions to posts without thinking through what you're about to submit and then when what you've said is exposed for being dumb or just plain incorrect you try to go back and dance around the issue. Your arguments are not honest and your debating style is very cheap which tends to get you into a lot of trouble.
Apparently she did have a choice, because they honored the mother's request.

And now I'm done talking to you. Permanently.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Shimei

Parents shouldn't shelter their children? How does that logic work? Children are children and are not ready to make the decisions of an adult. You must raise up a child BEFORE they can make the decisions of an adult.
Not the definition of shelter I had in mind.


That’s the problem; the child is still being raised! Children coming across offensive material are not immune from the effects of it. They are simply not ready to handle it.
I know, from personal experience, that that is simply untrue. I was ready, and I did handle it.

[Eowyn]

Originally posted by granite1010
I mean, come on, "Black Beauty" has shown up on lists of forbidden books...



It must have been the, "Liberal List of Dangerous Books Enforcing Positive Values" booklist.

[Lighthouse]

What's the problem with sheltering your kids? They don't grow up. That's what. My friend, that I mentioned earlier, constantly acts like a child. And it annoys her friends. And she comes across as uneducated because she doesn't know things she should at her age. And she's now an adult. Her parents job is over, and they did a horrible job.

[Servo]

Originally posted by lighthouse

What's the problem with sheltering your kids? They don't grow up. That's what. My friend, that I mentioned earlier, constantly acts like a child. And it annoys her friends. And she comes across as uneducated because she doesn't know things she should at her age. And she's now an adult. Her parents job is over, and they did a horrible job.

You have it completely backwards.

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

What's the problem with sheltering your kids? They don't grow up. That's what. My friend, that I mentioned earlier, constantly acts like a child. And it annoys her friends. And she comes across as uneducated because she doesn't know things she should at her age. And she's now an adult. Her parents job is over, and they did a horrible job.

Bumped into people like that before. Naivete is way, way overrated. But it's not just being naive. People like that have a mixture of gullibility and thin skin that makes them vulnerable and easy to take advantage of, among other things. I've seen it happen and it's sad.

[Morpheus]

Cory Ten Boom told of when she was around ten and asked her father about sex. Her father asked her to walk over and pick up a packed suitcase. When she tried she was unable. He explained to her that she wasn't ready to pick up that suitcase yet and that knowledge of sex was much the same. Eventually she would be ready for both. She must be prepared for both. Sheltering has its place but can be a problem. Parenting involves preparing our children for the world that they must live in. Keeping certain things from the until they are older is one thing, but when they are still unexposed when they leave the nest, they are totally unprepared for the journey they are beginning. If a child grew up never being exposed to fire their first reaction when seeing it would be attraction. They hadn't learned that it could burn them. The attrition rate in Christian colleges is extremely high. It's amazing how much those sheltered kids can be exposed to even in that environment. I repeat, our job as parents is preparing them for being on their own. That involves allowing them to make choices so they will not just continue to do what they are told. They can't make choices if they only see one side of an issue. I believe that God allowed evil in the world because without the contrast we would not be able to truly appreciate good. We would not be able to choose Him because there would be no choice.

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Apparently she did have a choice, because they honored the mother's request.

And now I'm done talking to you. Permanently. What a wuss!!! Poly just truthsmacked the snot out of you, and you take your ball and run home!!!

:darwinsm:

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

Bumped into people like that before. Naivete is way, way overrated. But it's not just being naive. People like that have a mixture of gullibility and thin skin that makes them vulnerable and easy to take advantage of, among other things. I've seen it happen and it's sad.
Exactly.

[Lighthouse]

THis isn't about running away. I've never liked Poly's attitude. If I did, then I would continue to discuss this issue with her. I'm still willing to discuss it with Nineveh, Shimei and anyone else who disagrees with me.

[Granite]

"The attrition rate in Christian colleges is extremely high. It's amazing how much those sheltered kids can be exposed to even in that environment."

Exactly. What does this tell you? If Christian students drop like flies at college, it tells me either a good shot of reality and criticism is good, or that they didn't have much of a faith when they went into college to begin with.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by lighthouse

THis isn't about running away. I've never liked Poly's attitude. If I did, then I would continue to discuss this issue with her. I'm still willing to discuss it with Nineveh, Shimei and anyone else who disagrees with me.

Ok, we've already talked about this in IM so....

When did you begin having trouble with porn :Brandon:? Do you recall?

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Poly

Yeah, there's some great advice there. Let kids read any kind of smut they want as long as you let them know that it's wrong. :freak: Yeah, like those sexual fantasy books. Let them read those so their appetite is good and wet and then tell them it's ok to read that stuff just as long as you don't partake of it. Which could also send the message, "it's ok to hang around all the other immoral college students that do that stuff as long as you aren't the one doing it." Nice way to set a child up for failure.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

"The attrition rate in Christian colleges is extremely high. It's amazing how much those sheltered kids can be exposed to even in that environment."

Exactly. What does this tell you? If Christian students drop like flies at college, it tells me either a good shot of reality and criticism is good, or that they didn't have much of a faith when they went into college to begin with.
I actually agree with you.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Ok, we've already talked about this in IM so....

When did you begin having trouble with porn :Brandon:? Do you recall?
Not particularly. I was exposed a little when I was a kid, but I really didn't have that much of an interest in it, seeing as how i hadn't hit puberty yet. I do remember being a young teen and staying at my cousin's house, and his mom bought him Playboy's [which I do not condone], and he showed them to me, and he had videos he had gotten from friends. And I enjoyed it. But afterwards I felt guilty, and was afraid that I would go to hell if I didn't "get right" with God. Well, this guilt and shame only fueled the problem. I would go for some time not dealing with it, and then I would go right back in. Anytime I had access to it. But I never wanted to buy my own, because I didn't want people who didn't know me to know I looked at porn.

It wasn't until I learned that I have no reason to be ashamed of what has been forgiven me that I stopped. I've had some drawbacks, but nothing like what I used to deal with. And now I'm at the point where I don't want it. It used to be that I always wanted it, but I would sometimes just be bored with it. Now I'm no longer insterested.

Why?

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by lighthouse

But keeping a 15 year old from reading a book, just because it has lanuage you find offensive is fruitless. If you've raised your child right, and they come across something like that, it isn't going to effect them negatively. It might upset them, and they would choose not to read it on their own, but that's as far as it would go. I dealt with a scenario just like that in high school. There was an author that I thought was good, based on one book I had read. So I decided to try another of their books, and the first page had so many cusswords I couldn't tell what was actually going on. I put it down. And I've never sought it out to read again. Why? Because I was raised in such a way that I am able to make right decisions. Not always, but most of the time. This is why seeing violence on TV and in the movies doesn't make me want to kill people. Wow, lighthouse. You should give me the title and author of that book so when I have kids, I can make sure they read that one and tell them it's wrong before they can be expected to pass up the next book with a ton of cuss words on their own. :thumb:

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Not particularly. I was exposed a little when I was a kid, but I really didn't have that much of an interest in it, seeing as how i hadn't hit puberty yet. I do remember being a young teen and staying at my cousin's house, and his mom bought him Playboy's [which I do not condone], and he showed them to me, and he had videos he had gotten from friends. And I enjoyed it.

Do you think your parents giving you sexual information at this point would have subtracted or added to your attraction?

But afterwards I felt guilty, and was afraid that I would go to hell if I didn't "get right" with God. Well, this guilt and shame only fueled the problem. I would go for some time not dealing with it, and then I would go right back in. Anytime I had access to it. But I never wanted to buy my own, because I didn't want people who didn't know me to know I looked at porn.

It wasn't until I learned that I have no reason to be ashamed of what has been forgiven me that I stopped. I've had some drawbacks, but nothing like what I used to deal with. And now I'm at the point where I don't want it. It used to be that I always wanted it, but I would sometimes just be bored with it. Now I'm no longer insterested.

Why?

Do you feel this was really worth the trouble? Do you feel you would have been "left out of the loop" had you not been exposed to porn in your younger and teen years?

[Lighthouse]

I wouldn't suggest letting your kids read that book.:rolleyes:

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by the Sibbie

Yeah, like those sexual fantasy books. Let them read those so their appetite is good and wet and then tell them it's ok to read that stuff just as long as you don't partake of it. Which could also send the message, "it's ok to hang around all the other immoral college students that do that stuff as long as you aren't the one doing it." Nice way to set a child up for failure.

Yeah...

I remember Judy Blume.... :(

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Do you think your parents giving you sexual information at this point would have subtracted or added to your attraction?
They had already given me information. I knew how babies were made. And I learned that at a very young age. What contributed to it, at the beginning, was that I had just gone through puberty. I should not have been exposed to pornography, and neither should my cousin. What my aunt did was wrong.

But I also feel that it would have been easier to decline if I had been raised better, with a better knowledge of the truth.


Do you feel this was really worth the trouble? Do you feel you would have been "left out of the loop" had you not been exposed to porn in your younger and teen years?
No and no.

But this isn't about porn. It's about novels. And if these books are as sexually explicit as pornography then the school shouldn't be making students read them anyway.

[Poly]

Originally posted by lighthouse

And if these books are as sexually explicit as pornography then the school shouldn't be making students read them anyway.

Compare this with....

Originally posted by lighthouse

I don't see what the point in getting all bent out of shape over what literature your child is reading in school. Instead of being all, "I don't want my kid reading about that," teach your kid about that stuff, and be honest and truthful.

:doh:

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by lighthouse

They had already given me information. I knew how babies were made.

So that we aren't confused here... when did you get this info? Before you first exposure to porn or after?

And I learned that at a very young age. What contributed to it, at the beginning, was that I had just gone through puberty. I should not have been exposed to pornography, and neither should my cousin. What my aunt did was wrong.

At least we are agreeing here.

But I also feel that it would have been easier to decline if I had been raised better, with a better knowledge of the truth.

Surely you aren't implying your parents lied to you about sexuality. You said you were given the information, what do you feel was lacking that made it harder for you to resist becoming a porn addict?

No and no.

But this isn't about porn. It's about novels. And if these books are as sexually explicit as pornography then the school shouldn't be making students read them anyway.

This is about porn. The issue is where you are drawing the line and where I am drawing the line.

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I actually agree with you.

:shocked:

In all seriousness...what may "trouble" or "upset" somebody may not faze someone else. I think people miss the point: much literature is SUPPOSED to upset and trouble you. Make you think.

[Morpheus]

from Indiana Civil Liberties Union website http://www.iclu.org/legal/religious_activities.asp#7

Excusal From Religiously-Objectionable Lessons

Schools enjoy substantial discretion to excuse individual students from lessons which are objectionable to that student or to his or her parent on the basis of religion. Schools can exercise that authority in ways which would defuse many conflicts over curriculum content. If it is proved that particular lessons substantially burden a student's free exercise of religion and if the school cannot prove a compelling interest in requiring attendance the school would be legally required to excuse the student.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Poly

Compare this with....

:doh:
He's like flip-flop Kerry, only without the purple hearts. :freak:

[Granite]

Can anybody list specific books they would find offensive, troubling, objectionable, and inappropriate for high school sophomores?

[Servo]

Originally posted by granite1010

Can anybody list specific books they would find offensive, troubling, objectionable, and inappropriate for high school sophomores?

Probably any book that YOU would like them to read.

:D

[Poly]

Originally posted by Lucky

He's like flip-flop Kerry, only without the purple hearts. :freak:

I've actually felt bad for the guy at times the way he gets ridiculed around here but he brings so much on himself.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Shimei

Probably any book that YOU would like them to read.

:D Titles, Shimei, give us some titles.

Or authors, at least.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Shimei

Probably any book that YOU would like them to read.

:D

I know. Mark Twain and George Orwell, corrupting minds. What IS the world coming to...

As Gerald asked: authors optional, titles preferred.

SPECIFICS. What gets your goat? Anybody?

[Gerald]

:: SFX: chirping crickets ::

[Granite]

:devil:

[Servo]

Originally posted by granite1010

I know. Mark Twain and George Orwell, corrupting minds. What IS the world coming to...

As Gerald asked: authors optional, titles preferred.

SPECIFICS. What gets your goat? Anybody?

Give us a list of the books that you like to read. Do they contain profanity, sexual content, and denigrating depictions of Christians?


There ya go!

[Granite]

Originally posted by Shimei

Give us a list of the books that you like to read. Do they contain profanity, sexual content, and denigrating depictions of Christians?


There ya go!

Shimei, I asked YOU what YOU would fine objectionable. For crying out loud. Once you Christians sign the dotted line does having a back and forth discussion not apply anymore?

A self-observed judge and jury like you will find fault in just about anything that's not G-rated. I don't really see the point in this idiotic Q&A.

(Deep breath.)

Fine. Let's humor you and see how prudish you really are. (Oh, and this'll be cute! Let's see if you even read any of these.)

To Kill A Mockingbird
Huckleberry Finn
Catcher in the Rye
1984
Animal Farm
Les Miserables
The Diary of Anne Frank
The Adventures of Cavalier and Clay
The Killer Angels
The Moon is Down

This is just some stuff off the top of my head. I know I'm aiming high with "Les Mis."

I would also include some of the poems and short stories of Poe, O. Henry, and Hawthorne, but that's more of a personal preference than anything else.

[Servo]

Originally posted by granite1010

Shimei, I asked YOU what YOU would fine objectionable. For crying out loud. Once you Christians sign the dotted line does having a back and forth discussion not apply anymore?

(Deep breath.)

Fine. Let's humor you and see how prudish you really are. (Oh, and this'll be cute! Let's see if you even read any of these.)

To Kill A Mockingbird
Huckleberry Finn
Catcher in the Rye
1984
Animal Farm
Les Miserables
The Diary of Anne Frank
The Adventures of Cavalier and Clay
The Killer Angels
The Moon is Down




All of those books are evil and they should all be burned!!!

:devil: :devil: :devil:

You really have me figured out dude.

:darwinsm:

Originally posted by granite1010
A self-observed judge and jury like you will find fault in just about anything that's not G-rated. I don't really see the point in this idiotic Q&A.

Then quit posting.

[Nineveh]

Morpheus,
I fail to see your point here...

from Indiana Civil Liberties Union website http://www.iclu.org/legal/religious_activities.asp#7

Excusal From Religiously-Objectionable Lessons

Schools enjoy substantial discretion to excuse individual students from lessons which are objectionable to that student or to his or her parent on the basis of religion. Schools can exercise that authority in ways which would defuse many conflicts over curriculum content. If it is proved that particular lessons substantially burden a student's free exercise of religion and if the school cannot prove a compelling interest in requiring attendance the school would be legally required to excuse the student.

Two things:

A. She lives in Michigan
B. She objected but now:

Now the Christian mom is upset because she feels her teenager is being made to suffer academically and emotionally for a decision that every parent is legally entitled to make.

she was also told by the superintendent if she did not like the curriculum, she should find another school for her child.

"So that's the battle that I'm in right now," Thrasher says. She says Katherine, who had previously been an all-A student "has now, because I have refused to allow her to read these vile books, had to watch as her grade has gone to a D-minus.

[Nineveh]

:Brandon:,
Please don't forget post 54 :)

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Shimei
All of those books are evil and they should all be burned!!!

:devil: :devil: :devil:Now for some heavy lifting: show us why they're evil and should be burned.

[Servo]

Originally posted by Gerald

Now for some heavy lifting: show us why they're evil and should be burned.

It was a joke dude.

:doh:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Morpheus,
I fail to see your point here...



Two things:

A. She lives in Michigan
B. She objected but now: The point is that the quote was not referring to an Indiana issue. That is the position nationally as case law stands now. If it is proved that particular lessons substantially burden a student's free exercise of religion and if the school cannot prove a compelling interest in requiring attendance the school would be legally required to excuse the student. The way it stands now, schools cannot force students to fulfill a curriculum if it interferes with their free exercise of religion nor hold students responsible for not completing those assignments. They can develop alternative lessons to replace those that the student was excused from.

[Ninjashadow]

I think that this issue is basically moot. This is America and parents have the freedom to raise their children any way they want within the confines of the law. If that lady doesn't want her child reading what the schools say the child must read, she has that right. I think they could work out a plan that would satisfy both parties.

As for the homeschooling topic goes, I was homeschooled until fifth grade and entered the public school system with a math level of an 8th grader and a reading level of a highschool senior. My mom took me to homeschooler get togethers on a weekly basis and did a very good job of keeping me from being naive and without compromising her Christian principles.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Shimei

All of those books are evil and they should all be burned!!!

:devil: :devil: :devil:

You really have me figured out dude.

:darwinsm:



Then quit posting.

So I take it you either a) have no idea what these books contain, b) don't care, c) prefer to be flippant, or d) have given up having a halfway serious discussion.

Anybody have an issue with my suggested reading list?

[Servo]

Originally posted by granite1010

So I take it you either a) have no idea what these books contain, b) don't care, c) prefer to be flippant, or d) have given up having a halfway serious discussion.

Anybody have an issue with my suggested reading list?

I had read a few of those books back in high school.

But discussing specific passages in those books with you, I would see as pointless. I think we covered the intent of the thread.

Good luck finding someone to bite.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Shimei

I had read a few of those books back in high school.

But discussing specific passages in those books with you, I would see as pointless. I think we covered the intent of the thread.

Good luck finding someone to bite.

I don't see how anything there would be so bad teenagers couldn't read them.

This demonstrates that prudish behavior hasn't gone anywhere. Anyone who thinks Christians wouldn't burn books again if they had a chance is dreaming.

[Ninjashadow]

Hey granite,

I understand and respect your perspective, but I must disagree. I do not believe that this woman was trying to get the school to drop the books altogeher, but rather to keep her daughter from reading them. It's not fair to call her prudish because she is trying to raise her daughter right. However, if she were trying to kee ALL of the students from it, then I think you would be correct. The difference is that she is not forcing her morals upon everyone else, but is merely protecting her daughter.

I have read many of those book you mentioned earlier, though not all, and one that stands out to me is Catcher in the Rye. It is an American classic, but the excessive use of using God's name in vain is offensive to many, if not most, Christians. The woman is standing up for what she believes in which is what makes America great; the freedom to do so.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Morpheus

The point is that the quote was not referring to an Indiana issue.

Ok.. and?

That is the position nationally as case law stands now. The way it stands now, schools cannot force students to fulfill a curriculum if it interferes with their free exercise of religion nor hold students responsible for not completing those assignments. They can develop alternative lessons to replace those that the student was excused from.

Did you miss the quotes from the mother and the superintendent ?

[Granite]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

Hey granite,

I understand and respect your perspective, but I must disagree. I do not believe that this woman was trying to get the school to drop the books altogeher, but rather to keep her daughter from reading them. It's not fair to call her prudish because she is trying to raise her daughter right. However, if she were trying to kee ALL of the students from it, then I think you would be correct. The difference is that she is not forcing her morals upon everyone else, but is merely protecting her daughter.

I have read many of those book you mentioned earlier, though not all, and one that stands out to me is Catcher in the Rye. It is an American classic, but the excessive use of using God's name in vain is offensive to many, if not most, Christians. The woman is standing up for what she believes in which is what makes America great; the freedom to do so.

She's trying to raise her daughter rightly as far as she's concerned. But if she's upset by "troubling" literature that might contain profanity, she's uptight at the very least.

As far as "Catcher" goes, I think people miss the point if they just zero in on the profanity. If it's upsetting, well, that's not my problem. I can understand how someone might be disturbed by the language, but for crying out loud. It's a classic and the most Christians can do is muster up complaints about the language. Just a matter of preference and mores, I suppose.

For all this saber rattling not a single Christian here has given an example of what they'd consider "offensive" literature.

[Ninjashadow]

Originally posted by granite1010

She's trying to raise her daughter rightly as far as she's concerned. But if she's upset by "troubling" literature that might contain profanity, she's uptight at the very least.

Perhaps, but again she can raise her child however she see's fit (within the confines of the law, of course).

As far as "Catcher" goes, I think people miss the point if they just zero in on the profanity. If it's upsetting, well, that's not my problem. I can understand how someone might be disturbed by the language, but for crying out loud. It's a classic and the most Christians can do is muster up complaints about the language. Just a matter of preference and mores, I suppose.

Many people do miss the point of the book and as I said it is an American classic, but that does not mean we should subject ourselves to something we find offensive.

For all this saber rattling not a single Christian here has given an example of what they'd consider "offensive" literature.

Personally, there's not a very big list of books that I've read that I've found offensive. In fact, I can't think of any off hand.

Now, when you say "literature" do you mean books that have been dubbed "classics" or are you referring to fiction in general?

[Granite]

Fiction in general.

[Ninjashadow]

Ever read anything by Tim Dorsey? He's not a real well know writer, but his books have made the Bestseller list. His books are about a serial killer who is obsessed with Florida. There is excessive drug use, very discriptive violence, and descriptions of sex acts. Most Christians would probably find this author to be very offensive.

[Granite]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

Ever read anything by Tim Dorsey? He's not a real well know writer, but his books have made the Bestseller list. His books are about a serial killer who is obsessed with Florida. There is excessive drug use, very discriptive violence, and descriptions of sex acts. Most Christians would probably find this author to be very offensive.

Some would, some wouldn't. If you choose to abstain from fiction like that, it's your choice--it's completely about personal preference. I love the work of Thomas Harris. On the other hand, he is not everyone's cup of tea by any means.

[Ninjashadow]

I like Thomas Harris as well and as you said it's not everyone's cup of tea. But the same reasoning goes to the woman and her child. Perhaps those books are not her cup of tea. Since that is apparently the case, she has a right to keep her daughter from reading those books if she so chooses.

[Granite]

I'd be curious to see what the daughter herself thinks.

"Black Boy," as one of the books mentioned, is important reading.

[Ninjashadow]

I think "Black Boy" is in a different category from say, Catcher in the Rye. For instance, it's basically an autobiography that utilizes fiction writing techniques, but also because it's a description of how Wright saw things and how they were. The book should not be read as a work of fiction and shoould be read in context of the times and area (early 1900's and in Mississippi).

[Granite]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

I think "Black Boy" is in a different category from say, Catcher in the Rye. For instance, it's basically an autobiography that utilizes fiction writing techniques, but also because it's a description of how Wright saw things and how they were. The book should not be read as a work of fiction and shoould be read in context of the times and area (early 1900's and in Mississippi).

Well, fine, but fictional or not the book is still significant literature. Just the same way Anne Frank's diary is important.

[Servo]

Originally posted by granite1010

I don't see how anything there would be so bad teenagers couldn't read them.

This demonstrates that prudish behavior hasn't gone anywhere. Anyone who thinks Christians wouldn't burn books again if they had a chance is dreaming.

The comment about book burning was a JOKE BTW....

[Granite]

Originally posted by Shimei

The comment about book burning was a JOKE BTW....

You may be kidding but I'm not.

[Servo]

Originally posted by granite1010

You may be kidding but I'm not.


When you look at all of the filth that is out there, I think it is safe to say that your book titles will be safe.

I don't think book burning will happen any time soon, unless the ACLU wants to start burning Bibles.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Shimei

When you look at all of the filth that is out there, I think it is safe to say that your book titles will be safe.

I don't think book burning will happen any time soon, unless the ACLU wants to start burning Bibles.

It's good, Christian nations who have bonfires, Shimei. Secularists are appalled at book burning and in some cultures it's been considered a capital offense.

[Thia]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

I like Thomas Harris as well and as you said it's not everyone's cup of tea. But the same reasoning goes to the woman and her child. Perhaps those books are not her cup of tea. Since that is apparently the case, she has a right to keep her daughter from reading those books if she so chooses.

Where is the mother's responsibility in all of this? Remember Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, where ebonics was used frequently to denote blacks' conversations? I believe the Bobbsey Twins had the same gig going on. Wouldn't you tell your children that, historically, imitating blacks' sppech in this way was acceptable but isn't any longer? Then why can't this mother tell her daughter that these books don't represent their particular family values but to read the books as required in order to garner a different perspective on life? Good grief - it's common sense. Give the kid a break and let her decide if it's objectionable or not. If she's being raised 'right', she'll know what's offensive and what isn't.

[Granite]

I keep thinking of that mother in "Donnie Darko," objecting to the work of Graham Greene.

And believing the author also enjoyed an illustrious career on "Bonanza."

Some people...

[Ninjashadow]

Originally posted by Thia

Where is the mother's responsibility in all of this? Remember Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, where ebonics was used frequently to denote blacks' conversations? I believe the Bobbsey Twins had the same gig going on. Wouldn't you tell your children that, historically, imitating blacks' sppech in this way was acceptable but isn't any longer? Then why can't this mother tell her daughter that these books don't represent their particular family values but to read the books as required in order to garner a different perspective on life? Good grief - it's common sense. Give the kid a break and let her decide if it's objectionable or not. If she's being raised 'right', she'll know what's offensive and what isn't.

Why should the child be allowed to decide? Until the child is 18 yrs old, the child is under the parents care and the parents have the right to raise their kids how they see fit. If the mother doesn't want the child to read the books, it's her right. It has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with values.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

Why should the child be allowed to decide? Until the child is 18 yrs old, the child is under the parents care and the parents have the right to raise their kids how they see fit. If the mother doesn't want the child to read the books, it's her right. It has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with values.

Yep! :up:

It's the parents business whether or not their children are homeschooled, placed in public education, or private schooled. If the parents do decide to have their children in public school, it is still the parents right and business to decide what their children read.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Ok.. and?



Did you miss the quotes from the mother and the superintendent ? I did not miss anything. The school may be ignoring her and her child's rights, but that doesn't mean it's legal. She still appears to be fighting since there is an article written about it. Legal action is likely in order. As much as Christians fuss about the ACLU I'm surprised that they will still work with us. Historically they fight as many cases in our favor as they do against us. They are the source of my original information. The ICLU is working with me right now.

[Granite]

Can ANYONE here give an example of "objectionable" or "troubling" literature, or have a problem with the list I put together?

If not this whole thread is much ado about nothing.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Morpheus

I did not miss anything. The school may be ignoring her and her child's rights, but that doesn't mean it's legal. She still appears to be fighting since there is an article written about it. Legal action is likely in order. As much as Christians fuss about the ACLU I'm surprised that they will still work with us. Historically they fight as many cases in our favor as they do against us. They are the source of my original information. The ICLU is working with me right now.

This girl is being discriminated against because the school isn't living up to it's promise. Even if this woman dragged it into court, that wouldn't help her daughter's grade at this point and would likely exacerbate the problem.

About the ACLU, speak for yourself.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by granite1010

Can ANYONE here give an example of "objectionable" or "troubling" literature, or have a problem with the list I put together?

If not this whole thread is much ado about nothing.

Or maybe this thread isn't about you and your book list :)

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Nineveh

This girl is being discriminated against because the school isn't living up to it's promise. Even if this woman dragged it into court, that wouldn't help her daughter's grade at this point and would likely exacerbate the problem.

About the ACLU, speak for yourself. Do you ever get tired of being bitter?

[Nineveh]

Me? Bitter? Over some gal who hasn't figured out she should homeschool? Can't say that I am :)

I have to say though, your last post seemed to indicate you were calling yourself a Christian...

[Granite]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Or maybe this thread isn't about you and your book list :)

But you guys are commenting about "offensive" literature. And no one's given a single example (much less a definition) of what this really is.

This entire fiasco started because a prude in Michigan got her nose bent out of shape. I wonder what her daughter makes of all this...

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by granite1010

But you guys are commenting about "offensive" literature. And no one's given a single example (much less a definition) of what this really is.

"Us guys"? I don't recall saying anything other than this mother (and by law as Morpheus pointed out) has a right to guide her daughter's education. Or in pullik skool lingo "get involved". When she did, the school told her to sit down and shut up. Now her daughter's grades have suffered.

This entire fiasco started because a prude in Michigan got her nose bent out of shape. I wonder what her daughter makes of all this...

It doesn't really matter if you think she is a "prude", it's her daughter. And the "get involved" slogan thrown at parents is a farce.

[Granite]

What she's doing and asking for is to make her daughter a special case. And evidently what she's requesting--alternate reading material--is against school policy.

If she's this upset, she should find another school.

[Thia]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

Why should the child be allowed to decide? Until the child is 18 yrs old, the child is under the parents care and the parents have the right to raise their kids how they see fit. If the mother doesn't want the child to read the books, it's her right. It has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with values.

The kid is 15 years old, for heaven's sakes. You can't put blinders on children - you may as well have them read the school board approved literature and make their own decisions - that's how life works. As I said before, if the child has been raised with true 'family values', she'll know what behaviour/language, etc., is acceptable and what is not. If parents object to a school's curricula, they should yank the kids out and find somewhere 'safer' to educate their children. THAT is common sense.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by granite1010

What she's doing and asking for is to make her daughter a special case.

So what? It's within her rights.

And evidently what she's requesting--alternate reading material--is against school policy.

"under the so-called "Hatch Amendment," children are not required to be involved in school activities that their parents have not reviewed or to which their parents have not consented."

I think you are incorrect.

If she's this upset, she should find another school.

Homeschool! :)

[Granite]

Maybe. Although in my experience (and others I've known) going to a school is more effective for teenagers.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Nineveh

So that we aren't confused here... when did you get this info? Before you first exposure to porn or after?
If I recall correctly, before.

Why?


At least we are agreeing here.
Of course we do.


Surely you aren't implying your parents lied to you about sexuality. You said you were given the information, what do you feel was lacking that made it harder for you to resist becoming a porn addict?
Love.


This is about porn. The issue is where you are drawing the line and where I am drawing the line.
I don't draw the line at most of what I've read. And if I would draw the line, I put the book down. As I did the time I mentioned.

But I wouldn't tell a 15 year old they couldn't read Romeo & Juliet. Or any other Shakespeare. But I would advise against Julius Caesar. It's pretty boring. I'm willing to bet that the books in question aren't as bad as they are made out to be. And if the girl was raised as a Christian, and actually is one, then she would not reject it based on a book. She probably would have chosen not to read the book, if she felt that it depicted Christians negatively... if she's anything like her mother.

If I came across something like that, I would read the book. And I would realise that the author had issues with Christians, or Christianity. But I see no reason to not read the book. Some people don't like Christians, and we can't make that go away by ignoring it, or pretending they don't.

Does anyone know how sexually explicit these books really are? Granite? You said you read one of them...:think:

Lucky-
It's not a flip-flop. There's just more to it than some people want to listen to. They'd prefer to jump to asinine conclusions, and attack what they think someone said, instead of wait until they have all the information. I never said pornography was okay. And if anyone can prove to me that these books are pornographic then I'll concede to the point that the mother did the right thing. Until then I will perceive her as overreacting.

However, I still agree that she should homeschool. The state of public schools today would make Horace Mann roll over in his grave.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Lucky-
It's not a flip-flop. There's just more to it than some people want to listen to. They'd prefer to jump to asinine conclusions, and attack what they think someone said...
What you said is right here in this thread for anyone to read. As it stands, there's contradiction. The worst thing about it, lighthouse, is you have too much pride to admit when you've goofed! :hammer: :doh:

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

So I take it you either a) have no idea what these books contain, b) don't care, c) prefer to be flippant, or d) have given up having a halfway serious discussion.

Anybody have an issue with my suggested reading list?
Yes.

1984 was incredibly boring.

As far as Animal Farm, I haven't read the whole thing. And I own To Kill A Mockingbird. I love that book!

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Love.

Do you feel "love" can honestly be said to have been the missing factor that compelled your adiction to porn, or was it lust?

I don't draw the line at most of what I've read. And if I would draw the line, I put the book down. As I did the time I mentioned.

I draw much different lines than you.

Does anyone know how sexually explicit these books really are?

How explicit do they need to be?

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

For all this saber rattling not a single Christian here has given an example of what they'd consider "offensive" literature.
Tex by S.E. Hinton.

[Thia]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Tex by S.E. Hinton.
Is that a school-required text, or just a book you find objectionable?

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Lucky

What you said is right here in this thread for anyone to read. As it stands, there's contradiction. The worst thing about it, lighthouse, is you have too much pride to admit when you've goofed! :hammer: :doh:
Goofed on what? I didn't change my mind on anything. If you find a contradiction, you are reading somethng that's not there, or going solely on face value. If you don't see a connection, just ask me.

Thia-
It's one i find objectionable. It's the book I mentioned earlier. Most of the first page was cuss words.:nono:

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Do you feel "love" can honestly be said to have been the missing factor that compelled your adiction to porn, or was it lust?
You asked what was lacking, Nin.

I didn't feel loved, even though I knew [mentally] that I was. And because of that I fell easily into lust.


I draw much different lines than you.
Maybe. Maybe not.


How explicit do they need to be?
Are they explicit at all? Would they be considered erotica? If they would, then I wouldn't think they'd require kids to read them in school. And I wouldn't want my underage children reading them either, if I had any.

My objection lies in that I highly doubt these books are as bad as they are made out to be.

[Ninjashadow]

Originally posted by Thia

The kid is 15 years old, for heaven's sakes. You can't put blinders on children - you may as well have them read the school board approved literature and make their own decisions - that's how life works. As I said before, if the child has been raised with true 'family values', she'll know what behaviour/language, etc., is acceptable and what is not. If parents object to a school's curricula, they should yank the kids out and find somewhere 'safer' to educate their children. THAT is common sense.

See, you're problem is you are trying to tell people how to raise their kids. The other thing is, the kid is REQUIRED to read it. You need to understand that. The kid would not have a choice, unless her mother stepped in. I know that you're trying to say that the kid should decide, but she really doesn't have a choice.

[Ninjashadow]

Originally posted by granite1010

Can ANYONE here give an example of "objectionable" or "troubling" literature, or have a problem with the list I put together?

If not this whole thread is much ado about nothing.

I have read very few (if any) books that have offended me, but this is a personal thing. What I think is not offesive may offend someone else.

[Thia]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

See, you're problem is you are trying to tell people how to raise their kids. The other thing is, the kid is REQUIRED to read it. You need to understand that. The kid would not have a choice, unless her mother stepped in. I know that you're trying to say that the kid should decide, but she really doesn't have a choice.

I absolutely am not [trying to tell people how to raise their kids]. My point is, if you, as a parent, feel that state-required or school board-required curricula is objectionable, and you worry about how your child is going to react to that curricula, you have every right to move your child to a school that is bested suited to your family's values. This child is going to be left behind in her scholastic grade point average because she won't (or is not allowed), to read certain literature that may or may not be controversial, but is required reading for college preparatory classes.

Note to Lighthouse: I don't blame you for not liking 'Text' for its potty mouth language; to me, swearing is lazy talk. I didn't like 'Good Fellas' (although everyone I know loves it...) for the same reason - every other word was filthy.

[Ninjashadow]

First of all, perhaps the family cannot afford to send the child to a private school. Also, if the family were Islamic, would there be a problem?
College and high school are two different things. In college, you can drop a class and take a different one (even different lit. classes have different reading requirements). Plus, by the time the kid is in college, he mom won't have as much a say (if any) in what the child reads.

[Lighthouse]

And to think, I don't think cussing is wrong, and I do it myself. Mostly because everyone around me does. But not as excessively as that book did.:nono:

[Thia]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

First of all, perhaps the family cannot afford to send the child to a private school. Also, if the family were Islamic, would there be a problem?
College and high school are two different things. In college, you can drop a class and take a different one (even different lit. classes have different reading requirements). Plus, by the time the kid is in college, he mom won't have as much a say (if any) in what the child reads.

Good questions, all. Firstly, what would be your solution to this problem? Should this child be allowed to complete this public school requirement via directed study or another alternative method? And re the Muslims - I don't really know if there would be a problem with their objections or not - I've not come across this topic as yet, but it appears to be a recently-researched phenomon in the educational field right now (post French ban on wearing religious (read Muslim) garb/adornment in public schools.) I just know that in many public schools we may no longer use the terms "Christmas" or "Easter Break". It's a shame for those of us who remember being in school in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s; however, in this new America of ours, we need to be sensitive to the 'new' Americans who may feel left out and/or inferior because their religious affiliation doesn't reflect the majority's. We should not scorn them, but love them with a Christian heart in hopes of unity.

(Personally, I always reference God in my classes, however subtly! But, it's a private school.)

Husband is now home, and I must serve our supper. Ciao for now.

[Ninjashadow]

I'm guessing, based on recent trends, that the school would go out of it's way to accomodate the Muslims. Secondly, I guess the best solution would be to have her read a different book and then have her turn in, say, a five page paper. She wouldn't have to read the books that her mother doesn't want her to read and the teacher wouldn't really have to do much more work.

You're right about the catering to "new americans." If you're in our country you do it our way, at least that's how it should be.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by lighthouse

You asked what was lacking, Nin.

I didn't feel loved, even though I knew [mentally] that I was. And because of that I fell easily into lust.

I asked what you parents failed to tell you about sexuality that lead to your addiction.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I can tell from your answers on this thread, there is no guessing about this.

Are they explicit at all? Would they be considered erotica? If they would, then I wouldn't think they'd require kids to read them in school. And I wouldn't want my underage children reading them either, if I had any.

"Considered" is the operative word there. I "consider" it inappropriate to paint mental images of sex in my daughter's head. However, public school thinks it not only appropriate, but has a whole class on the subject.

My objection lies in that I highly doubt these books are as bad as they are made out to be.

2 things....

1. It's not your "consideration" that counts with this mother in Michigan
2. She was "considering" it inappropriate for her own daughter not the whole school district.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I asked what you parents failed to tell you about sexuality that lead to your addiction.
I apologize.

Do you honestly think that I believe missing information about sexuality led to my addiction? If so, you need to ask before you assume, because that isn't what I believe. And that is not what I meant.

If the mother has taught her daughter that there are innapropriate things in the world, and has given her the information she needs to know what is, and what isn't, then the child will be able to make the right decision. Of course, if she weren't sending her child to public school she wouldn't have to worry about this. The point is, if you're going to send your child to public school, then sheltering them will only be a hinderance, because they're going to find out anyway. And if they don't, then when they are old enough to where they should know, they will just be naive little idiots who will most likely get into things they shouldn't.

But if you raise them right, and love them, and make sure they know it [not just because you tell them you do] then they will be well adjusted, and intelligent and the problems will be few.

I knew that pornography was wrong, and innapropriate, but I was so hungry for acceptance that I fell into a disgusting cycle. I even had trouble believing that God loved me. It wasn't until I came here, and heard what the Bible actually says, and read it for myself, that I quit doubting God's love for me, and my life changed. And now that I am feeling His love, and the love of others, I can walk in freedom, instead of bondage. Children need both truth, and love to develop properly.


I can tell from your answers on this thread, there is no guessing about this.
Honestly, I think you're assuming.


"Considered" is the operative word there. I "consider" it inappropriate to paint mental images of sex in my daughter's head. However, public school thinks it not only appropriate, but has a whole class on the subject.
Are you referring to Sex Ed?

Well, if every parent would do their job, then they wouldn't ahve to worry about that class. Of course, if you don't want someone else teaching your kid these things [which no one else should be] then don't send them to public school. I agree completely. My contention is that this woman is sending her child to public school, then trying to censor everything. She's fighting a losing battle, and if she wants to continue to subject her child to public school she should resign herself to the fact that she's failed. There is no point in censoring what your child is exposed to, if you're going to put them in that environment, because they will find out most things anyway.

However, I still don't find anything wrong with a 15 year old reading Romeo & Juliet, or Othello.


[qyuote]2 things....

1. It's not your "consideration" that counts with this mother in Michigan
2. She was "considering" it inappropriate for her own daughter not the whole school district. [/QUOTE]
You're right. She doesn't care what I think. And she probably doesn't care what you think, either. She was stupid enopugh to send her child to public school, then she complains about what they teach? She needs to grow a brain. If she considers it innapropriate, she needs to remove her child from public school. Simple as that.

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by lighthouse

If the mother has taught her daughter that there are innapropriate things in the world, and has given her the information she needs to know what is, and what isn't, then the child will be able to make the right decision.

You're sure about that?

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I apologize.

No need :)

Do you honestly think that I believe missing information about sexuality led to my addiction? If so, you need to ask before you assume, because that isn't what I believe. And that is not what I meant.

In post 49 I asked "Do you think your parents giving you sexual information at this point would have subtracted or added to your attraction?"

Yor reply in post 52: (edited a bit) "They had already given me information. I knew how babies were made. And I learned that at a very young age. What contributed to it, at the beginning, was that I had just gone through puberty. ... But I also feel that it would have been easier to decline if I had been raised better, with a better knowledge of the truth."

So then I asked in post 54: "You said you were given the information, what do you feel was lacking that made it harder for you to resist becoming a porn addict?"

Perhaps you would like to straighten me out now.

If the mother has taught her daughter that there are innapropriate things in the world, and has given her the information she needs to know what is, and what isn't, then the child will be able to make the right decision. Of course, if she weren't sending her child to public school she wouldn't have to worry about this. The point is, if you're going to send your child to public school, then sheltering them will only be a hinderance, because they're going to find out anyway. And if they don't, then when they are old enough to where they should know, they will just be naive little idiots who will most likely get into things they shouldn't.

But if you raise them right, and love them, and make sure they know it [not just because you tell them you do] then they will be well adjusted, and intelligent and the problems will be few.

This is starting to sound like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth :Brandon:...

What that mom should do is... yet you go on to say:

I knew that pornography was wrong, and innapropriate, but I was so hungry for acceptance that I fell into a disgusting cycle. I even had trouble believing that God loved me. It wasn't until I came here, and heard what the Bible actually says, and read it for myself, that I quit doubting God's love for me, and my life changed. And now that I am feeling His love, and the love of others, I can walk in freedom, instead of bondage. Children need both truth, and love to develop properly.

But, it didn't seem to work very well for you...

Honestly, I think you're assuming.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But you are saying that the impact of exposure to porn can be "lessened". I don't believe it can be. It wasn't for you.

Are you referring to Sex Ed?

Yes.

Well, if every parent would do their job, then they wouldn't ahve to worry about that class. Of course, if you don't want someone else teaching your kid these things [which no one else should be] then don't send them to public school. I agree completely. My contention is that this woman is sending her child to public school, then trying to censor everything. She's fighting a losing battle, and if she wants to continue to subject her child to public school she should resign herself to the fact that she's failed. There is no point in censoring what your child is exposed to, if you're going to put them in that environment, because they will find out most things anyway.

I agree. The reponsability of a parent is to raise their children. However, the topic between you and me has evolved into just how hazardous exposure to porn really is ( "prepared" or not ).

However, I still don't find anything wrong with a 15 year old reading Romeo & Juliet, or Othello.

Good for you. But, I'm not really on this thread to argue a book list.

You're right. She doesn't care what I think. And she probably doesn't care what you think, either. She was stupid enopugh to send her child to public school, then she complains about what they teach? She needs to grow a brain. If she considers it innapropriate, she needs to remove her child from public school. Simple as that.

And they should amend the "law" that gives a false sense of control to parents.

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

And to think, I don't think cussing is wrong, and I do it myself. Mostly because everyone around me does. But not as excessively as that book did.:nono:

Different strokes. For me, the novel "Wiseguys" (on which the movie "Goodfellas" was based) would have seemed ridiculous and childish without capturing the profanity of the Mafia hoods it was depicting.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by ShadowMaid

You're sure about that?
As sure as I can be. I know from experience.

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by lighthouse

As sure as I can be. I know from experience.

I disagree here.

Unless the mother actually tells why it's wrong, they can so mush easier do what they feel like doing about whatever (wrong or not), and not even care.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Nineveh

No need :)



In post 49 I asked "Do you think your parents giving you sexual information at this point would have subtracted or added to your attraction?"

Yor reply in post 52: (edited a bit) "They had already given me information. I knew how babies were made. And I learned that at a very young age. What contributed to it, at the beginning, was that I had just gone through puberty. ... But I also feel that it would have been easier to decline if I had been raised better, with a better knowledge of the truth."

So then I asked in post 54: "You said you were given the information, what do you feel was lacking that made it harder for you to resist becoming a porn addict?"

Perhaps you would like to straighten me out now.
The information my parents had given me came before I would have even been interested in porn. Also, I was introduced a little early, but I rejected it at that point.

I don't think I was lacking in the knowledge area. I might have had more than I should have, but that didn't come from my parents.

The main problem was feeling rejected. I knew my mother loved me, but she was distant. It was what she learned from her parents. And my dad tried too hard to be the opposite of his father. Plus coming from a broken home didn't help.

I was lacking love. Plain and simple. I did not know what it truly felt like. Now I do. But my fear of god's rejection for my failure to live up to the law fueled my cycle, because I felt so ashamed, and that just made my feelings of worhtlesness go deeper.


This is starting to sound like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth :Brandon:...

What that mom should do is... yet you go on to say:



But, it didn't seem to work very well for you...
It didn't work for me, because it didn't exist for me. I never said that I was raised that way.


I'm sorry you feel that way. But you are saying that the impact of exposure to porn can be "lessened". I don't believe it can be. It wasn't for you.
It all depends on when you're speaking of. My first exposure was before my dad's second marriage. It had no impact. I simply didn't care to see it, yet I was very interested in girls at that point.


Yes.
If Sex Ed was solely for the purpose of explaining how babies are made, it wouldn't seem so bad. But still, I believe that parents should be teaching their kids those things, not a public school teacher.

The problem lies with parents who don't teach their children. Then their children learn from their peers. And they could very well be taken advantage of, by someone like me, who's involved in pornography, and seeking pleasure from whereever it can be found. I honestly believe my relationship with Christ is the only thing that kept me from losing my virginity.


I agree. The reponsability of a parent is to raise their children. However, the topic between you and me has evolved into just how hazardous exposure to porn really is ( "prepared" or not ).
I don't know if I was "prepared" the first time, but I knew I was loved, and accepted... so the exposure did nothing.


Good for you. But, I'm not really on this thread to argue a book list.
Maybe not, but this is about a couple of books, isn't it?


And they should amend the "law" that gives a false sense of control to parents.
How about they just get rid of public schools, all together?

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by ShadowMaid

I disagree here.

Unless the mother actually tells why it's wrong, they can so mush easier do what they feel like doing about whatever (wrong or not), and not even care.
Did I forget that part? Of course the mother should explain why it's wrong. And if all she can come up with is, "It just is," the child should be removed from the household, and given to someone who has enough brains to know the logic behind right and wrong.

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Did I forget that part? Of course the mother should explain why it's wrong. And if all she can come up with is, "It just is," the child should be removed from the household, and given to someone who has enough brains to know the logic behind right and wrong.

No, you didn't state that. Thanks for making that clear. :)

[firechyld]

Why should the child be allowed to decide? Until the child is 18 yrs old, the child is under the parents care and the parents have the right to raise their kids how they see fit. If the mother doesn't want the child to read the books, it's her right. It has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with values.

So you feel that a teen should be handed their right to make decisions on their 18th birthday? That's just silly.

Adulthood isn't something that happens on a birthday. It's something you grow into... some earlier than others. It's a parents job to decide when their child should be allowed to assume certain responsibilities, but it's also their job to prepare that child to assume all other responsibilities if the need arises. You can't plan for everything.

A 15 year old should not necessarily be making all their own decisions about how the world works, and how they should operate in that world. But they should be in training for it. Not necessarily allowed to decide, but certainly learning how to.

lighthouse:

1984 was incredibly boring.

I'm in shock. Are we talking about the same book?

What IS the general stance on Shakespeare, btw? Are we condemning that because it contains rape, murder, adultery and non-Christian values, or is it OK because it's "classical"?

[Granite]

Ah yes. Shakes himself.

"Hamlet" turns into "Reservoir Dogs" by curtain; "Macbeth" is grimmer than anything Craven (or even Stone) could ever imagine; "Richard III" depicted the charm and glamour of tyranny.

Heaven forbid the bard ever troubled or disturbed anyone.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by lighthouse

The information my parents had given me came before I would have even been interested in porn. Also, I was introduced a little early, but I rejected it at that point.

I don't think I was lacking in the knowledge area. I might have had more than I should have, but that didn't come from my parents.

The main problem was feeling rejected.

So giving them information isn't what helps them cope with exposure to porn, is it.

I knew my mother loved me, but she was distant. It was what she learned from her parents. And my dad tried too hard to be the opposite of his father. Plus coming from a broken home didn't help.

I was lacking love. Plain and simple. I did not know what it truly felt like. Now I do. But my fear of god's rejection for my failure to live up to the law fueled my cycle, because I felt so ashamed, and that just made my feelings of worhtlesness go deeper.

And there is nothing in a public school that would have given you anything you were in need of.

It didn't work for me, because it didn't exist for me. I never said that I was raised that way.

You've just repeated yourself above, and you bsaically offered the same advice to this mom. Aren't you getting it yet?

It all depends on when you're speaking of. My first exposure was before my dad's second marriage. It had no impact. I simply didn't care to see it, yet I was very interested in girls at that point.

I think it did have an impact.

If Sex Ed was solely for the purpose of explaining how babies are made, it wouldn't seem so bad. But still, I believe that parents should be teaching their kids those things, not a public school teacher.

Yet you think it's ok to expose them to sexual situations in English class. You have seemed to suggest proper "preperation" will nullify any impact porn may have.

The problem lies with parents who don't teach their children. Then their children learn from their peers. And they could very well be taken advantage of, by someone like me, who's involved in pornography, and seeking pleasure from whereever it can be found. I honestly believe my relationship with Christ is the only thing that kept me from losing my virginity.

Teach them what?! To feel loved? Secure? Accepted?

I don't think you are willing to see the point I'm trying to get across to you. :(

I don't know if I was "prepared" the first time, but I knew I was loved, and accepted... so the exposure did nothing.

: sings : here we go 'round the mulberrybush.... : / sings :

Maybe not, but this is about a couple of books, isn't it?

Not really. It's about stupid laws that give false hopes to gullible parents where their kid's education is concerned.

How about they just get rid of public schools, all together?

If wishes were horses....

Make parents assume the responsibility of raising their own kids?! How dare you suggest such a thing?! :)

[Granite]

If anybody thinks a teenager's first exposure to "sexual situations" of any kind is going to be in English class, you need to get out more.

[Nineveh]

Granite,
I am in a convo with :Brandon:. If you want to follow along fine, but don't rip one sentence out of context.

[Granite]

Gee, Nin, sorry. Thought one was free to post on TOL, without getting a lecture from you.

You and Brandon wanna go a few rounds, use PM why don'tcha.

[Nineveh]

Did you miss the point? Or do you often reply to things out of context?

[Granite]

Nin, why don't you get off your high horse for a sec. For crying out loud. Not like your discussion with the Dairy Queen went very far, anyway.

[Nineveh]

granite,
I was talking to Lighthouse about something specific, you took me out of context to say something completely stupid that had nothing to do with the point I was making to Lighthouse. I didn't appriciate it. Want to carry on this irrelevant convo or drop it?

[Granite]

Your lack of appreciation having been noted, I'm waiting with bated breath for Brandon's return to uplift this discussion.:rolleyes:

[Nineveh]

granite,
Feel free to not get into the convo I'm having with Lighthouse, it's obvious you don't really care enough to go back and read the convo we've been having. You'd rather just take me out of context and make stupid remarks.

[Granite]

:darwinsm:

Nin, if I'd known a while ago it was this easy to get you offended and twist you into a hissy fit, I'd have been cutting in and out of your "discussions" the day I got here.

Man you take yourself seriously.

[Nineveh]

Ok, well, if you enjoy taking folks out of context to make idiotic remarks, be my guest. Who am I to stand in the way of you making yourself into a fool?

[Granite]

Nin, I'll run along after this post--I'm getting yelled at by Lucky--but if you can't develop a sense of humor it's your loss, not mine.

Sad little creature...

[Nineveh]

Oh!

You taking me out of context and making an idiotic reply was spose to be funny....

I see.

Well, what I got out of it was how pathetic you are becoming.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by firechyld

lighthouse:



I'm in shock. Are we talking about the same book?
Yes.

What IS the general stance on Shakespeare, btw? Are we condemning that because it contains rape, murder, adultery and non-Christian values, or is it OK because it's "classical"?
I love Shakespeare!

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Nineveh

So giving them information isn't what helps them cope with exposure to porn, is it.
I never said that information [knowledge] was the only thing they need.


And there is nothing in a public school that would have given you anything you were in need of.
Don't tell me things I already know.


You've just repeated yourself above, and you bsaically offered the same advice to this mom. Aren't you getting it yet?
Getting what?


I think it did have an impact.
And I know it didn't. I remember it, but that's it. I wasn't interested. I didn't look through it. I saw some things, but walked away.


Yet you think it's ok to expose them to sexual situations in English class. You have seemed to suggest proper "preperation" will nullify any impact porn may have.
I never said that. If you can prove these books are as sexually explicit as porn, then you will have a point. Right now, you don't. And neither does this mother.


Teach them what?! To feel loved? Secure? Accepted?
Yeah. So they know what love really is. And what acceptance is, so the don't fall for the counterfeits.

I don't think you are willing to see the point I'm trying to get across to you. :(
What is your point?


: sings : here we go 'round the mulberrybush.... : / sings :
What? Just because I can't say that my parents had discussed the dangers of porn with me by the time I was six?:rolleyes:


Not really. It's about stupid laws that give false hopes to gullible parents where their kid's education is concerned.
That too. But why are the parents gullible? Because their parents sheltered them, yet sent them to public school. It's a vicious cycle.


If wi