Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Parent's responsibility, not the school's, to teach

Comments

Return To Article
  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 1:09 a.m.

    "Parent's responsibility, not the school's, to teach"

    You almost got that right...

    It is the responsibility of the schools to teach. And it is the responsibility of the parent to see that the kid attends, pays attention, studies, does homework, and instills in the kid, to get ahead you must get an education.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 6:19 a.m.

    Do Utahns even know what "civil liberties" means? The way ACLU bashing occurs here, I think many people here don't deserve any.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 26, 2012 7:26 a.m.

    The day will come when you will be forced send you children to private schools because of the politically approved garbage taught in public schools.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 7:27 a.m.

    Banning books is a big red flag. What are you afraid of? Books?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    Is this letter a joke?

    This person actually supports book banning? Who decides that? Should we have a big bonfire in the streets and toss these unwanted books into them? Where have I seen this before?

    Let the free market decide on books. If they aren't wanted or popular, publishers won't make them! If students are taught and believe in their moral/religious teachings, they won't touch those books. Even if they do, they have the Atonement to use in order to repent for their sins and book readings.

    We need to stop this nanny government of expelling books and getting rid of Sex Edu. You cannot be saved in innocence.

    Let us prepare our children for the real world and let them make real choices. After all, wasn't that the plan all along?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 9:05 a.m.

    Has the writer actually read the book? I think I'll have to go find it in the library and read it myself. Then I'll be able to decide based on knowledge rather than fear induced by others.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    Hey posters....

    Before you bash the letter writer for being everything Book banner to whatever..You may want to read the comments of the author of the book..

    She has stated that the book WAS NOT intended for elementary school, but for the teenagers who could grasp the concepts...

  • Miss Piggie Ogden, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    @The Real Maverick:
    "This person actually supports book banning?"

    I see your point. Where are 'Playboy' and 'Hustler?' I realize they are not actually books... but banning these beneficial and educational publications borders on malfeasance. Our poor kids... how are they to ever make it in this world being so deprived?

    "If students are taught and believe in their moral/religious teachings, they won't touch those books."

    Too funny! What bubble do you live in?

    "Even if they do, they have the Atonement to use in order to repent for their sins and book readings."

    I know... Don't you just love it? I plan on doing just that as I lay dying. In the mean time, I plan to eat, drink, and be marry...

    "We need to stop this nanny government of expelling books and getting rid of Sex Edu. You cannot be saved in innocence."

    You cannot be saved buried in abject sinfulness.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Nov. 26, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    When the your 'best' argument you can make of some type if harm is to erroniously compair a book about a loving family that happens to have to moms instead of a mom and a dad to incest you lose all credability sorry.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    Re: "Gay marriage . . . has no place in schools, in the library or textbooks, etc."

    Too true. And the fact that even the author of the book in questions understood that should be reason enough to fire the librarian that ordered it.

    UEA/NEA hates it when we point it out, but there's no question of censorship if the book was never purchased in the first place. Even the ACLU can't make a school library buy a book.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    The book was not promoting Gay marriage,
    but rather teaches tolerence and acceptance by highlighting bigotry and hatred.

    I think school aged children SHOULD be taught those things.

    And you wonder why bullying is still such an issue?

    BTW - Book banning was rule #1 in radical right-wing Facsist and Taliban regimes.

    And who's the one's pretending to promote Constitutional Freedoms, while FORCING everyone to Choose The Right -- always?

    Book banning.
    Biggest Red-Flag in trampling our Constitutional, Civil, and Religous ideas regarding freedom.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    This letter is mind boggling. It compares gay marriage to incest? This book is about being in a loving family where both partners are of the same gender. It is no more about sex than one about a family with heterosexual parents, step-parents or a single parent. All children, even in Utah, know classmates from non-tradtional families. It is teaching them tolerance and not to ostracize, discriminate, ridicule and harrass those who are different.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    I have not read or seen this book so I can not judge it's content. I will say this however, as someone who is looking to go into teaching I feel it is important for children to understand that their classmates come from all different kinds of homes and backgrounds.

    My oldest brother lives in rural North Carolina and his kids are the only Mormons at their school. Imagine if all their classmates shunned them simply because of their religion.

    If you personally oppose the gay lifestyle because of religious reasons, that's your choice. But the fact of the matter is, your kids are going to hear about it one way or the other. Perhaps seeing this book might actually be beneficial for both your kids and you.

    That's just my opinion.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 11:56 a.m.

    @embarrassed Utahn!

    You said - "Do Utahns even know what "civil liberties" means? The way ACLU bashing occurs here, I think many people here don't deserve any."

    You're implication is, the ACLU is above criticism and that people have no right to disagree with them. You also seem to imply that civil liberties is something that only people who agree with your politics, lifestyle or beliefs deserve to have.

    Perhaps then you agree that a man named Michael Salman deserved to be sentenced to 60 days in jail and given three years probation for committing the unspeakable crime of holding Bible studies in his house. Apparently he permits from the city to do this, yet the city has never demanded permits for similar neighborhood gatherings such as for poker nights or Monday Night Football parties.

    A couple in San Juan Capistrano, California has been threatened with jail by city officials also for holding Bible classes in their home. Yet when a large Super Bowl party was held nearby, the city didn't complain about that.

    I would be curious to know how the ACLU feels about cases like this? Perhaps embarrassedUtahn has already answered that question for me.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 12:11 p.m.

    This really is ridiculous ---

    If it's about promoting the "Leave it to Beaver", "Father Knows Best" black & white "Pleasantville" fictional utopia created in 1950's T.V.

    Then we should look at this wholeistically and leave no stone left unturned....

    Why not ban books with DIVORCED parents?
    or Widowed parents,
    or
    Minority or Mixed Race Parents
    or
    Parent worshipping at different Churches, or No churches at all?

    And while we're at it -
    ban books mentioning Abusive parents,
    or
    Depressed or Mentally ill parents.

    Cherry picking one against all the others is undeniable BIGOTRY.

    My heck!
    This place drives me insane somedays!

    BTW - When you start burning books, burning people is not too far behind.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 2:01 p.m.

    Re: ". . . I feel it is important for children to understand that their classmates come from all different kinds of homes and backgrounds."

    And that's your right. But parents who feel differently about the issue have the same rights as you.

    The problem here is that liberals believe only they are smart enough, or open-minded enough, or cosmopolitan enough, or righteous enough to dictate what EVERYONE's kids should learn is school, and therefore, they are the only ones that should have the right to do so.

    Then they turn around and call everyone else bigoted.

    Too funny!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 2:38 p.m.

    "Gay marriage...

    [or Races
    of genders
    or Religion
    or Cultures
    or physical abilities
    or times
    or places
    or social classes
    or different...different...different...]

    is a subject to be handled by parents or guardians, period. It has no place in schools, in the library or textbooks, etc. That is called indoctrination."

    =========

    Fill in the blank and can anyone else see how biased, one-sided, myopic, narrow-minded and bigoted this statement truely is?

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 3:31 p.m.

    The teacher/librarian (whoever)decided to put the book "behind the desk" made a tactical error.

    He/she should have either NOT bought the bk., or put it on open shelves. In other words: don't buy a bk (out of public funds), then attempt to hide it.

    The school district probably already has a policy in place with regards to purchasing materials. I suspect that policy doesn't allow purchased materials to be "hidden".

    That is probably why the ACLU has a case. THAT POLICY was probably violated.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 4:19 p.m.

    The letter writer would have a valid point IF the schools were requiring her child to read this book. Instead, this lawsuit only seeks to end censorship and make the book available to those who want it.

  • Noodlekaboodle Millcreek, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 4:36 p.m.

    If we are supposed to get rid of books that discuss polygamy we better remove every book concerning the history of Utah. Every single one of those books talks about polygamy.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 5:26 p.m.

    @ClarkHippo -- If the facts of those cases are as you present them, then the ACLU would likely sue the cities in question on behalf of those individuals. The ACLU is only "liberal" in the sense that they believe in protecting the civil liberties of all people, even if those people are not popular. Because unpopular people are often deemed to be "liberal" by conservatives, it is a common misconception of conservatives that the ACLU is "liberal". Since they at one point filed suit to help out Rush Limbaugh (in connection with his drug abuse issues), I don't think anyone can accurately say they only help "liberals".

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 7:21 p.m.

    @LDS liberal

    Book banning is much a part of the far left,

    or do you just want to pretend to ignore all the banning of books and ideas and speech by communists and others of the far left, even her in US by leftest college students and professors, l9berasl teachers at lower levels.

    or how the far left controls tv, radio and the internet and the press, expecially in communist countries.

    or ignore that is was NAZIs, a far left party, a sibling of communism, that burned books (NAZI = national socialist party of the german workers, a socialist party for the worker is by definition the left)

    OR you ignore the liberals attempts to shut down and minimize talk radio, and shutdown any voice or anyone who supports or endorses ideas that not are in line with leftest dogma. Just see climate change, evolution, any racial thing, or opposition to homosexuality or gay marriage, views on energy and wilderness, or ...

    Yes. the far left bans and controls too.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 8:48 p.m.

    @ confused: Where - exactly - does the author state the book is for junior high students? Because the book is written on a grade school (1-4 grade) reading level and nothing on the author's website indicates she wrote a children's book for junior high students.

    @ 1conservative: The book was bought through the regular book purchase channels. It was on the shelf in the library at the school. A child mentioned the book the book the his/her parents or borrowed the book and took it home or something. Once the parents became aware of the book, there was a petition to remove the book from the school. The school compromised by placing the book behind the desk so that only children with a note from their parents could check it out.

    The ACLU is arguing that the book should be available to all students, not just those who are already aware enough of it to ask their parents for a note so they can read it.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 9:18 p.m.

    @ ClarkHippo: Michael Salman built a building in his backyard in which to hold church services with up to 80 church members twice a week at which he collected tithes - not Bible studies. The building did not meet fire and safety codes. Salman claimed the building as a church so that he would not have to pay property taxes on it, but when questioned on safety requirements, he claimed the building was for personal use and not subject to the same safety standards imposed on other churches.

    He cannot have it both ways - a church exempt from property taxes and a private building exempt from building codes. In no way were his civil liberties violated.

    The couple in San Juan Capistrano were in violation of a city code that prohibits "religious, fraternal or non-profit" gatherings of more than 3 people without a permit. In response to their citation and fines, the city is changing the code to be more in line with state building codes that require no permit for home religious study groups of 50 people or less. The fine money was refunded to the couple.

    This case was also about building codes.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 9:28 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal:
    "BTW - Book banning was rule #1 in radical right-wing Facsist and Taliban regimes."

    Yeah, but they burned all the books... except their beloved Koran.

    Banning books and burning them are too different issues. In our society you can always get a copy of any banned book from someplace. Some places ban marijuana... but people can always find and get it.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 26, 2012 9:47 p.m.

    I'm surprised people still think kids seek out and check out books from the library.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 1:16 a.m.

    Banning books just scares me.

    Has there ever been a "good" society which banned books?

    Banning books usually is the start of a really bad and scary society...

    Does Utah really want to play with fire?

    Lets not go down that road.

    Let the books be and let children and parents decide what to read.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 12:13 p.m.

    Much of Utah is so far away from the real world, it's amazing.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 6:17 p.m.

    The fact of the matter is there is no book banning going on.

    The fact of the matter is we have always censured and controlled material for children.

    It is our duty and responsibility to do so.

    There is NO book banning going on. Any one can get that particular book if they want it.

    But is is our duty as a society and a community to manage what our children can see and read.

    And sometimes a child needs a parents permission and approval.

    Parents have every right to decide how certain things are presented to their children.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 8:34 p.m.

    @Noodlekaboodle:
    "If we are supposed to get rid of books that discuss polygamy we better remove every book concerning the history of Utah."

    And especially the Holy Bible.

    "Every single one of those books talks about polygamy."

    Wait'll our gay friends get homosexual marriage pushed through. You'll see polygamy resurface with a vengeance. It'd only be fair. If two same sex people can marry as a human right, why can't those with a propensity for polygamy also marry as a matter of human right? Or a number of many other combinations?

  • Born that Way Layton, UT
    Nov. 28, 2012 7:20 a.m.

    I think the objection parents have is they don't want their children exposed to the Homosexual agenda in gradeschool. It shouldn't be part of a childs concerns. I understand the need for homosexuals to cast themselves as perpetual victims, and claim that the children they obtained and brought into their unusual family settings might be misunderstood or bullied, but it might be more appropriate to approach the topic of bullying rather than introducing children to human sexuality at such a young age. This concept of sexualizing children for the good of the gays is repugnant to parents who think children should at least get a few years of innocence.

    Despite having some of the highest levels of disposable income of any other victim class in society, gays continue to believe that without special consideration they won't keep the spotlight. But many parents who actually contributed to their children's genetic makeup feel that the gay identity needs to take a backseat to raising children.

    And young children simply don't understand sex. That's a problem and a conflict that's unlikely to go away... regardless of one's perceived hurt feelings or sense of outrage.