House of Eratosthenes

The film, “That’s a Family!”, looks at diversity through the eyes of children who talk about their own families. One child talks about having mixed-race parents. Another talks about living with a divorced parent. Others talk about single parents, traditional parents, adoptive parents.

And then there’s the child who says, “This is my mom. Her name is Betty. And this is my other mom. Her name is Kim.”

What really gets under my skin about this is this presumption of what goes on if the matter is simply left unexplored. As if we’re all predestined to turn into a bunch of Archie Bunkers if some sweater-wearing blue-stater doesn’t get to us first, and teach us how to be tolerant.

I know better. First-hand.

What gets people intolerant, is watching a bunch of blue-state liberals take over the curriculum and start deciding, on in place of the parents, that the kids should be exposed to the same-sex live-in issue when the parents might not be cool with it. You know, that just might cheese some people off.

Isn’t it funny? When people discuss the benefits of “tolerance” — not pencil-neck bureaucrats, but real, flesh-and-blood Main Street people — invariably, when they have something good to say about it it’s because they want less anger in the world, and they hope a greater amount of tolerance will displace the anger.

And then when the bureaucrats start teaching little kids how to be tolerant, it seems to have a symbiotic relationship with anger. As in, “We’re going to teach you how not to grow up to be a filthy so-and-so like that no-good redneck Archie Bunker.”

What other motive can be behind exposing kids to same-sex households in a controlled environment? What if, within that child’s experience, the matter is simply left untouched. And one day he goes home for some after-school milk-and-cookies with his friend Jimmy…who tells him…this is my Mommy and this is my other Mommy. Does anybody, anywhere, seriously think the kid’s going to freak out on the spot?

No, I don’t think anybody thinks that. Not unless the kid has been learning hatred at home.

In which case, the purpose of the program is to displace the parents’ values. Oh yes, for a righteous and noble purpose…make sure those bigoted parents can’t contaminate the next generation with their bigoted filth.

Well, I see some value in that. But when the purpose is confined to that, it’s a little disquieting. If the kids have been learning tolerance at home…and if they’ve been learning nothing about the issue at home…they’re outside the designated scope of the program. It’s for kids that have learned things at home that the teachers don’t like. So line up kids, we’re going to make sure you’re sterilized of any slime and bug larvae you might have picked up in that gutter from whence you came.

It’s certainly a camel’s nose issue if nothing else. Today the kids will be cleansed of any home-schooled values about same-sex couples they might have picked up, that the academics don’t like; tomorrow, it’ll be voting ideology, religion, gun rights, NASCAR races vs. Soccer.

I dunno. It’s tough to live out on the west coast and see it as a mecca of individualist values. But there is something invading our Atlantic seaboard, it seems to me. My girl grew up in upstate New York, she came out here to California because I was able to fool her into thinking I’m some kind of desirable and sexy dude…we like to tease each other now and then about which state is doing a better job becoming a Peoples’ Republic. Out there in this swath that stretches down from New England, to the beltway of DC, something’s going on. This whole “screw those brits, let’s dump the tea in the harbor” spirit has been driven out. Forcefully, from my point-of-view. I feel it every time I have to rummage around for quarters so I can go through those damnable turnpikes.

And hatred-versus-love toward same-sex households — there’s no two ways about it, that’s a private matter. It’s being turned into a public matter, so we can waste a lot of energy arguing about it. Not so we can be more “tolerant.” That isn’t part of the plan. If it was, the heat would dissipate over time with these diversity curricula, and that isn’t what I see happening by a damn sight.

If religion is a set of beliefs it’s adherents are required to believe, and government-run education is trying to impose a certain set of beliefs on everyone, then isn’t that a violation of the first amendment?

Just askin’ 😉

I’m pretty sure we basically agree on the answer.

How about teaching “tolerance” for conservatives?
- philmon | 09/18/2007 @ 11:51
Ummm…I dunno, Morgan. I think I’m with your girlfriend, assuming she thinks California is in the lead when it comes to the Peoples Republic sweepstakes. My experience is a bit removed, what with having left the SFO-SSR nearly five years ago, and having left Upstate New York way back in 1999 (after living there for five years). Still and even…I think CA wins the prize, hands down. No contest. And any other cliché you can come up that fits…
- Buck | 09/18/2007 @ 12:07

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Forcing Them Into ToleranceTuesday, September 18th, 2007

Forcing Them Into Tolerance
Tuesday, September 18th, 2007