Lexington Violates U.S. Constitution; Religion Is Taught In Their Schools
Barney Frank Wants Discussions on an 'Intellectual Level'
Are Smokers Tolerated in Lexington?
It's Nice to be Honored
 

Lexington Violates U.S. Constitution; Religion Is Taught In Their Schools

We've expressed our concern many times that, under U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the atheists have established their "religion" as the foundation of our society in Massachusetts. [Archive: atheist]

This was proven last month by the Superintendent of the Lexington school system. 

She made it clear that the humanist religion as practiced by the Unitarian Church is the foundation for the policies of the Lexington public schools - just as we have been saying.

The truth came out during and after a meeting at the Bridge Elementary School where 250 parents crowded into a special school committee meeting to find out what the schools are teaching about homosexuality. Many of the parents were unhappy with what they were told.

One parent had previously told the Superintendent, Pat Ruane, that what they were teaching her children was in opposition to her religious beliefs. But the Superintendent responded that that did not matter because, "There is a separation of church and state." 

Our reporter, Ed Oliver, questioned the Superintendent about this statement after last month's meeting. She conceded she had made the statement and she repeated her strong opinion that there is a separation of church and state. So the reporter then asked, "Why then are the Lexington schools co-sponsoring the 'Respecting Differences' activities [a pro-homosexual seminar and other events] along with the lead sponsor, Lexington's Unitarian Church?"

The Superintendent was silent for a moment. She was unable to answer the question other than to stammer, "That's how Lexington does things, as a community."

She was unable to answer the question because it was absolutely clear that she was wrong when she said there is a separation of church and state in Lexington. To the contrary, the schools have a dominant religion. It is the religion of humanism which is entwined with most of what is taught in the schools.

If we are going to teach about homosexuality in the public schools, all the way down to children in kindergarten, it is common sense that we should not teach just one side of the issue. We should not just glorify the lifestyle as the Unitarians do. We should also teach our children about the terrible problems that plague that community, such as health risks like syphilis which is surging among them in Boston, the high use of drugs that is troubling even the leaders, AIDS, and many similar problems. If we have books in the schools that glorify the practice, then there should be books on the other side that illustrate the problems. If we are going to have homosexual speakers, then there should be ex-homosexual speakers, as well.

The above is just plain common sense unless the subject of homosexuality has become a religious issue as it has for the Unitarians - and for Superintendent Ruane. 

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1963, "We agree of course that the State may not establish a 'religion of secularism...'" Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203. 

This is clearly what has happened in Lexington. The town of Lexington is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 
 

Barney Frank Wants Discussions on an 'Intellectual Level'
After he attended the homosexual fair sponsored by the Lexington public schools and the Unitarian Church last month our reporter wrote, "Frank urged people to take this argument to opponents on an intellectual level."
We hope our reporter is correct. But it's difficult to believe that Frank wants that to happen when he also called those who disagree with him "morons" and "hypocrites." He apparently doesn't realize that some of those who disagree with him are psychologists and psychiatrists at the famed John Hopkins sexual unit.

It's true that the Congressman stated there should be a "rational discussion" of what the schools are teaching. (That's exactly what we are trying to accomplish.) But Frank doesn't really want that.

Whatever Frank believes, there is going to be intelligent discussion between more and more moderate persons because they abhor what this distracting, collateral issue is doing to the ability of the schools to perform their main function of educating our children. 

One such group, "Newton Parents for Moderation," met last month to a packed house where they had a heated but respectful discussion. When the many homosexuals in the audience broke into loud applause at one point, the moderator said, "I can see you approve of that, but there are differences of opinion and other points of view. That's why we're here." 

Our reporter at that meeting wrote, "The feeling in the room eventually changed from challenging [the moderator] to a mutual effort on everyone's part to really hear one another out."

Part of the problem in Newton is Superintendent of Schools Jeffrey Young, who told his teachers recently that "fundamental human rights" would triumph over the rights of parents in the Newton schools. He did not reveal who provides the definition of a "fundamental human right."

The modest attempt at a discourse in Newton was met by the force of hate exhibited by the Boston Globe in the form of columnist Eileen McNamara. She did not talk to any of the members of the new group but nevertheless wrote a prominent column on the front page of the second section, savaging the entire affair the day before it occurred. 

After many paragraphs of biting sarcasm, she ended with this:

"Newton Parents for Moderation has asked parents of 'all views' to attend tomorrow night's session at the library for a 'polite, respectful discussion of these issues.'

"How could the conversation be anything but polite and respectful? These are not homophobic, bigoted or intolerant people. These are Newton Parents for Moderation."

Regardless of the hateful pen of Eileen McNamara, there are many moderate persons in our state who would like to put her extreme views behind us. Maybe even Barney Frank will join in.
 

Are Smokers Tolerated in Lexington?
Smoking is widely condemned in the Lexington schools, but no one considers what this has done to the children of smokers. (The health risks of smoking should be taught in the schools but we have probably gone too far on this issue. Our publisher has been a member of anti-smoking groups like ASH since the 1970s.) 

This may sound humorous to some, but we will guarantee that the children of parents who smoke are mortified and we show little empathy for those children. Some of those parents will state they have always had a tremendous desire to suck as long as they can remember. There are psychologists who will agree with them. For some unknown reason, some adults cannot stop this craving. We tolerate their habit, but we would never permit them to extol its virtues in the public schools.

So, why are we not teaching the dangers of the unhealthy, foolish habit of homosexuality? Why, instead of teaching those dangers, are the schools normalizing this sexual practice? 

It really doesn't make any sense. Who was it who decided we will teach children the dangers of smoking but not of homosexuality? It's now the standard mantra that everyone must accept for themselves and their children - that homosexuality is normal and healthy. Who made the decision?

The activists will ridicule any comparison to smoking. They do so because they have no logic that will deny the truth of it.

Of course, we must have tolerance of everyone, but we don't have to glamorize and approve a lifestyle in order to have tolerance. There's a big difference between "toleration" and "approval." It's another sign of the weakness of our schools when the educators are unable to see that simple difference.
 

It's Nice to be Honored
It was rewarding to be honored with the "2000 Citizenship Award" at the Ninth Annual Banquet of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

It was particularly gratifying because we do not always agree on every issue, but we do stand firmly together on an absolutely crucial one: for thousands of years, the basic unit in society has been the family. When we change that bedrock, we are threatening our entire civilization. We are now seeing the result of the ravages from the changes that have been implemented in the past thirty years.

The Massachusetts Family Institute should be whole-heartedly supported by everyone who believes in cherishing our children.