|
from Gay Activism in the Schools
Judge Rules In Favor Of
PFOX/Citizens Group Lawsuit
A federal judge has issued a restraining order against the Montgomery County School District over its promotion of homosexuality and censorship of opposing viewpoints.
May 6, 2005 -
United States District Court Judge Alexander Williams, Jr., issued a restraining
order against the Montgomery County (Maryland) School District on May 5
resulting from a lawsuit filed by Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays
(PFOX). The restraining order forbids the school district from implementing its
pro-homosexual curriculum until all issues are resolved.
In his decision, Judge Williams noted: "In this case, Defendants open up the
classroom to the subject of homosexuality, and specifically, the moral rightness
of the homosexual lifestyle. However, the Revised Curriculum presents only one
view on the subject--that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct
lifestyle--to the exclusion of other perspectives."
PFOX and Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum were represented by the Liberty
Counsel, a Florida-based religious liberties law group.
PFOX spokeswoman Regina Griggs is pleased by the judge's decision. "The School
Board can follow its own stated goal of diminishing sexual orientation
discrimination by starting with the ex-gay community. The School Board failed to
include resources with positive portrayals of former homosexuals and, instead,
approved resources that attempt to discredit their decisions and experiences.
The ex-gay community must not be excluded or discriminated against in our
schools."
Dr. Warren Throckmorton and NARTH member David Blakeslee, Psy.D., have published
a detailed analysis of the significant factual errors in the pro-gay health
curriculum being implemented by the school district. According to Dr.
Throckmorton, "Parents are having their views heard at last. We documented the
one-sided nature of this curriculum months ago and informed the school of these
findings."
Of this court decision, Dr. Blakeslee observed:
This is an important positive development in the struggle to reclaim science
from social advocacy groups. Science does well at explaining cause and effect
or relationships between variables. When scientific rules are diligently
followed, scientific results can be trusted.
What science does not do well is determine ultimate meanings and purposes. That
has long been the responsibility of the individual within a moral, spiritual and
religious context. Social advocacy groups often assume a moral authority and
have an underlying belief system that drives their work. All social advocacy
groups have a political agenda which colors and shapes their use and omission of
scientific data. The curriculum was particularly egregious in this regard, to
the point that it poorly informed about human sexuality in general, and in the
case of the video, grossly exaggerated the benefits of condom use.
Even more troublesome was the use of an advocacy group's distortion and
manipulation of traditional religious beliefs in the curriculum. There is a
growing body of sociological and psychological evidence that religious faith and
spirituality have a number of positive individual and social outcomes that
improve coping and problem-solving.
The curriculum would have been experienced by many religious and spiritual
students as an attack on this fundamental source of meaning and purpose.
The curriculum, rightly rejected by the judge, manipulatively tried to presents
distorted science and distorted religion as an authoritative sex education
curriculum.
This is a success for pluralism, religion and science.
The Throckmorton and Blakeslee critique of the health curriculum is available
here: http://www.drthrockmorton.com/montgomeryhealthrevision2005.pdf.
Updated: 9 April 2008
|
