In today's Lexington Minuteman there is another letter from Mad Dad's attorney (
credit to Mass Marrier for the nickname). It seems Neil Tassel is upset that he was quoted incorrectly by another "Letter to the Editor" written by a high school student. Tassel says:
According to a letter written by Eric Eid-Reiner, of Russell Road, I made the statement that one "child's family (or maybe the families of some of his friends)" was "not as good as others." That statement is untrue. Not only did I not say such a thing, and never would, but it represents the grotesque manipulation of fact that continues to frequent any discussion concerning Mr. Parker's position.
However, as one loyal reader pointed out, Neil Tassel wrote in his
July 28th OP-ED defending Mad Dad:
"The fact is that Mr. Parker, an intelligent individual with a Ph.D., takes exception to specific belief. That belief is that a gay couple with children is a normal and morally equivalent family structure which is equally beneficial to the ultimate goal of any family, the wellbeing of the children being reared."
So which is it? Are we to believe the OP-ED which he must have spent hours writing, or an impromptu press conference? I guess the word in question is "good". From these two statements I read that Atty Tassel believes that one child's family is just as good as another family, however, it's Mad Dad who believes that a gay couple with children are not normal or morally equivalent to an opposite sex couple with children.
Thanks for clearing this up.
5 comments:
Apparently, the attorney is upset because his children are being ignored by some of the other kids. I guess if I were a parent in Lexington, I wouldn't want my child playing with Parker's or Tassel's kids. Besides, I'm sure they wouldn't bother with my kids since their parents are of the same sex. Their loss.
I have an interesting observation to make. If this group is so concerned about protecting the children, why are they aligning themselves with the Catholic church that sent home petitions with their students this week? That is just forcing parents to have a conversation with their children that they are not maybe prepared or want to have just yet. And isn't that what they are against in the first place--forcing the discussion onto the youth.
Or how about the fact that they are having CCD students passing out and collecting signatures at the mass this week? I remember being in CCD and I believed every single word the nuns told me (now, that I am an educated man, I personally believe organized religion is only for uneducated insecure people-only a personal opinion--I know I am in the minority in that regard)
My assumption would be that there is hate rhetoric being spewed in the catholic schools and CCD classes. I fully support the catholic church not changing their beliefs to meet modern society political correctness. But, where is the line drawn when they are telling the youth of this country that we are not normal and thus creating more homophobic citizens?
What is considered freedom of speech? freedom of religous beliefs? Once again, I don't want to tell anyone what to believe or even interfere with that. I am just concerned about hate speech and the results of that.
Anonymous:
Constitutionally, parents, churches and private schools are legally allowed to pack kids' heads with whatever dogma--regardless of how hateful it is--that they'd like. In fact, it would be unconstitutional for government (federal, state, local, school district, whatever) to prevent them from doing so.
Ugly though that is, I think it's the only tolerable solution to the problem of the proper role of government in this area. It feels awfully icky to say, but I think Ms. Massresistance and her cohorts are right to complain about the way that countries like Canada have leaned toward making homophobic speech into a crime. I certainly don't want the government deciding what political or religious beliefs I'm allowed to express. (I'm betting that, in this country, yours and mine would be quickly banned, Anonymous.)
The 'phobes go back to being paranoid doofuses immediately afterward, of course, when they holler that Speech Crimes will soon become the law in the U.S. At the moment, we still have the First Amendment, and the only real threats to that are coming from the very factions that our opponents are members of.
But, of course, even though the government can't tell David Parker or Catholic schools that they're doing terrible things to their children (and their neighbors' children) by teaching hate, private citizens sure as hell can. Parker's and the Pope's ideas regarding GLBTs aren't and shouldn't be illegal, but they are hateful--and we have every bit as much right to say so as they do to rant and rave.
thanks for having this blog! You do such a great job and service to our community. Everyone I know reads this blog now.
Anonymous said:
And isn't that what they are against in the first place--forcing the discussion onto the youth.
He is correct, it is indeed forcing a discussion.
I would like to point out the difference.
That is just forcing parents to have a conversation with their children
The difference is who is having the discussion. Apparently, these parents want it to be parents who have the discussion, not government employees.
Just imagine how it would feel if we allowed other government employees, say Army Recruiters, to have the discussion about career opportunities with Each and Every High School Senior. I think there are some discussions which the Government is best left out of...
Anonymous also said:
But, where is the line drawn when they are telling the youth of this country that we are not normal and thus creating more homophobic citizens?
while Anonymous had previously said:
I personally believe organized religion is only for uneducated insecure people
Please don't take this as a DIG or an Insult! I am wondering if Anonymous realizes what he ended up conveying...
I would tend to think that calling a group of people "uneducated" and "insecure" is tantamount to calling them "not normal."
Anonymous also said:
I don't want to tell anyone what to believe or even interfere with that. I am just concerned about hate speech and the results of that.
Question: What if their religion commands them think of all non-believers as "Infidels"?
If Anonymous is not Muslim, that is what every Muslim taught about him.
I Looked up the word Kafir on Wikipedia; the last line is telling: "... carries the weight of a racial epithet."
Kafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic word meaning a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth. In cultural terms, it is a derogatory term used to describe a non-Muslim, a Muslim of a differing sect, or an apostate from Islam. It is often translated into English as "infidel" and carries the weight of a racial epithet.
Post a Comment