IGF gets a mention from the
religious right media concerning efforts to use the government
against the gay-families-inclusive children's book King &
King, including those who want to ban it from public and
school libraries (the book is about a prince who, instead of
marrying a princess, decides to marry her brother).
According to a report by the Cybercast News Service (CNS), part of the social conservative Media Research Center, Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality predictably proclaimed that King & King is being used to propagandize young children: "The homosexual movement is moving to push the behavior on young children, with the idea being that they can get to them before the natural moral opposition to homosexuality is even formed," LaBerbera said.
When CNS asked presidential candidates "Should teachers read the book to second graders as part of the school curriculum? Would you read it-or have read it-to your own children?":
"The answer is no," [Fred] Thompson's chief campaign spokesman told Cybercast News Service. "He's very clear. There is no wishy-washiness."
Romney is also opposed. "This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers," the former Massachusetts governor said in a statement. "We need to strengthen our families by passing a federal marriage amendment and also insisting on marriage before having children."
But IGF contributing author David Boaz offered a different take:
"Should the federal government require this book? I would say no. Should the federal government ban this book, no it shouldn't," Boaz told Cybercast News Service.
"But if the question is, should this book be in local libraries or in school districts, then I would say sure, why not? There are some gay families, so what's wrong with letting kids find out in a calm, non-hysterical way that there are different kinds of families in the world?"
Of course, both the left and the right often want to promote their own world views through government schools and libraries, which is why (as long as there are government schools and libraries) letting local school boards and library districts make book selection decisions, without state and federal interference, seems like the safest course.
3 Comments for “It’s Propaganda If You Don’t Agree”
posted by Regan DuCasse on
“with the idea that they can get to them before the natural opposition to homosexuality is even formed.”
Why is it that so much of what people like LaBarbera say is the pot calling the kettle black?
First of all there IS no natural opposition to homosexuality.
The opposition has been artificially fostered over most children’s lifetimes.
There is no natural belief in God, nor is it arranged naturally around Christianity or Judaism. This is teaching, and inculcation from BIRTH.
He and what he wants to government to do, where religious persuasion has no power, is to assume that young children aren’t equally aware of, love or already have been around gay people that care for them, or that they love.
It is inevitable that we all will know gay people in our lives.
It’s most UNNATURAL to have any animus or such hostility towards gays and lesbians (who grow up with us as siblings, extended family, school peers or professional colleagues.)
LaBarbera would prefer the government get into the business of making gay people disappear and everyone else pretend they don’t, never did exist. Let alone contribute meritoriously to society.
It’s religious faith that has to prove itself and doing it at the expense of gay people and forcing it by government influence just shows how desperated extremists are to pick on the last minority in which they can still influence things.
Supporting gay people and the reality of gay people’s lives, doesnt come at the expense of anyone else’s choices.
Not even Christians or Christianity, or the family.
The law MUST recognize that, even if Peter La B and his cronies don’t.
No one can agree or disagree with their sexual orientation. Whether you’re gay or not. That would be like disagreeing with trees not growing upward.
You COULD disagree, rail against it and try and get the government to take time, money and their valuable resources to make trees grow downward, but what would be the point?
It’s certainly not for the well being of the tree.
A belief in God, or any other religious path is a CHOICE, and shouldn’t now or ever again trump the options another human being has to optimize their happiness and freedom.
posted by Michael M. on
I guess I’ve been out to lunch on the finer points of Romney’s social agenda, since the major points are so objectionable. How exactly are we going to insist “on marriage before having children”? Is Romney planning a massive national seizing of all tots born out-of-wedlock?
posted by Brian Miller on
letting local school boards and library districts make book selection decisions, without state and federal interference, seems like the safest course.
So suppose the local school board in Paducah decides that the library will contain nothing but Christian literature, and the one in Berkeley decides to ban all Christian literature as “patriarchal and harmful to children?”
The only thing there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority is the big bad federal Constitution.
Local control is *not* always better, nor does it protect the rights of the minority any better (or worse) than federal or state control. It’s just a smaller version of mob-rule “democracy” than what you’ll find at a state or federal level.
As for the GOP candidates, they remain rather pathetic. No surprise there.