Chicago Girl Sues Teacher for Showing 'Brokeback Mountain' to Class

  • Bookmark and Share

A 12 year old girl is suing the Chicago Board of Education for negligence, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress after a substitute teacher led her 8th grade class to watch the film Brokeback Mountain with the warning, "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," according to the lawsuit.

The teacher then proceeded to show the 8th grade elementary school class the R rated gay themed film; a film that garnered its rating for sexual content, language and drug use.

According to the suit, a substitute teacher introduced herself as Ms. Buford to Jessica's class at Ashburn Community Elementary School, 8300 S. St. Louis Ave. She then said, "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," the suit claims. Buford then had a student close the door, and started showing the controversial R-rated film, which features two men engaged in sex.

The suit alleges Ashburn's principal, Jewel A. Diaz, was aware that the tale of the love between two cowboys set in the West of the 1960s was being shown to the minors.

Turner later told her grandfather that she was confined to her seat and felt she could not leave the room, according to the suit filed in Cook County Circuit Court.

The plaintiffs accuse Diaz, Buford and the Chicago Board of Education of negligence, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (src. Chicago Sun Times)

The AP version of the story that is being used in most papers across the country left out charges of negligence and false imprisonment while emphasizing the psychological aspect of the young girl's claims.

Turner and her grandparents, Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, are seeking around $500,000 in damages.

"It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this," said Kenneth Richardson, Turner's guardian. "The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this."

According to the lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court, the video was shown without permission from the students' parents and guardians.

The lawsuit also names Ashburn Principal Jewel Diaz and a substitute teacher, referred to as "Ms. Buford."

The substitute asked a student to shut the classroom door at the West Side school, saying: "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," according to the lawsuit.

Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling.

In 2005, Richardson complained to school administrators about reading material that he said included curse words.

"This was the last straw," he said. "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith." (AP Feed via the Chicago Triubune)

So many things to discuss here. Since when does a substitute teacher get 2 hours and 15 minutes of free reign over a class of 8th graders? It doesn't happen without the help and knowledge of someone at the administrative level. Thus the claims about the principle's involvement are probably correct.

It will be interesting to see how the MSM treats this story. The AP version is gaining flight across the internet so the obscurity excuse will not fly.

It doesn't take a whole lot of common sense to know that you shouldn't show a film that is rated R for language, nudity and drug use to a class of 12 and 13 year olds.

But this act was done for a reason if in fact the teacher did show the film to the students. There was an agenda. Regardless of your stance on homosexuality there is no denying that the film was shown to promote a pro-gay agenda. That agenda allowed someone to override school rules, common sense concerning all the superfluous negative content and parental choice; including the R rating which comes with a parental approval mechanism of its own. This should be the story. Teachers with an ideological agenda should not be allowed to teach from that focus in public schools. Yet time and time again we are confronted with the fact that parents are repeatedly and often circumvented by agenda driven teachers. None of this can happen without help at the administrative level.

The reaction against this student and her family will be predictable among some proponents of the film. I guarantee that someone will downplay the psychological and traumatized claims of the 12 year old and her family as being cooked up. They will say that it is an over exaggeration for the sake of a lawsuit. But before you come to that conclusion I urge you to visit the comment section on the IMDB database for Brokeback Mountain. Many comments discuss the emotional exhaustion left by the film. Granted most of these comments are from people enthralled with the film but they are essentially adults who claim the film left an emotional mark. This of course can happen both ways, for some it may have been emotionally draining in a positive way and for others it may be emotionally devastating in a negative way.

This story is a unfortunate byproduct of liberal activism. It is not one of tolerance and diversity because it is intolerant and disrespectful toward those of faith not to mention those who struggle with raising children in the world of the entertainment industry's pro sex, drugs and guns mentality.

Terry Trippany is the editor at Webloggin


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A pure case of indoctrination

The closing of the door, the admonition not to discuss anything that "happens" in class with parents, the unusually long period, the lack of ANY possible academic content for 12 or 13 year-olds... All point to the unequivocal conclusion that this was a pure and intentional act of attempted indoctrination into a particular mindset. These are some of the same techniques that are used in behavioral modification. Desensitization to events or situations is the first step to trying to make someone accept them as "normal".

IMO, the substitute, the principal and the entire administration of that school system should be indicted for child abuse, sexual assault on a minor and corrupting the morals of a minor.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic.

AMEN!  I couldn't agree more

AMEN!  I couldn't agree more.

I am beyond disgusted...

Ditto here. I can't imagin

Ditto here. I can't imagine that the teacher had any other intention but to purposefully expose the kids to this. He/she cannot have been ignorant of the lewdness of the film since the synopsis talked of the men engaging in "awkward and violent anal sex." There is simply no reasonable explanation for this.

I hope the parents get megabucks from the school district for this, and that the teacher not only gets fired, but never gets another job around kids anywhere.

I've seen this film and it's

I've seen this film and it's literally pornographic - showing this to 12 and 13 year-olds actually makes this "teacher" a predatory sex offender...

You're spot on, c5then.  Ind

You're spot on, c5then.  Indoctrination is exactly what this so-called teacher was conducting.  This is just what parents fear in the education system:  teachers who take advantage of the schoolroom environment and their powerful role in it, to push a personal agenda on the impressionable young mind they have been entrusted with. 

I can remember back in 1992, I was stationed in Naples, Italy and my children were attending the DoDDS elementary school at Pinetemare.  My daughter was in kindergarten.  The school --- grades K-6 --- conducted a mock election, and Bill Clinton defeated George Bush the Elder.  I asked my daughter whom she voted for.

Emily:  I voted for Bill Clinton.

Me:  And why did you pick  Mr. Clinton over Mr. Bush?

Emily:  Because Bill Clinton is for eduction.

This came as quite a surprise to me because (1) my wife and I had never discussed politics in front of the children, (2) we had no television in our house that the kids could've gotten information from and thechildren didn't listen to Armed Forces Radio, and (3) she was too young to read anything in the newspaper.

It was perfectly obvious that in order to conduct the mock election, the teachers had to provide the students with information.  When I attempted to learn from the school where the information came from, I couldn't get anything more than ambiguous answers.

In the case of this substitute teacher, in addition to the awarding of damages, I hope the state's regulations can revoke this substitute's teaching certificate for her lifetime. 

I have to agree with you c5th

I have to agree with you c5then. Is it not also illegal for 12-13 year olds to view an R rated movie? As far as I know it is. I know one can't prevent irresponsible parents from watching an R rated movies with their children in the home, but in school! D# this is scandalous and the parents should be awarded the 500,000 in damages, the sub fired and banned from teaching.

The MPAA ratings are volunt

The MPAA ratings are voluntary guidelines that were enacted as a way to keep the government from imposing their own nationwide legally-binding ratings system. Non-enforcement by theaters, video stores, etc., isn't illegal. You can't arrest a theater manager for selling tickets to an R-rated movie to unaccompanied minors.

But that's wholly irrelevent to this event--the kids weren't voluntarily walking into a video store and trying to pull a fast one.

I'm not sure what the legalities are of forcing children to watch an adult movie, but I'd fire the substitute for failure to follow the lesson plan left by the regular teacher. You can't get much more grossly incompetent than that.

You won't hear much about thi

You won't hear much about this...Could have been worse. She could have shown them a film like "The Ten Commandments"...then WATCH OUT!

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

This incident, and this law

This incident, and this lawsuit, illustrate why public schools should not exist. "Reform" is not possible. You can't ever get "conservative values" from socialism, and (as Florida is proving) throwing more money at the problem won't solve it.
JMR

Exactly sarcasmo, this is a c

Exactly sarcasmo, this is a clear case of why we need separation of school and state

An observation

Let's not stop at "Brokeback Mountain".  As a substitute teacher I have to fill in wherever the school district needs me and teach a number of subjects.  Earlier this year I sub taught in a high school science class where I had to show a video about evolution that was produced by The Discovery Channel. 

This video would have been comical had it not been so full of outrageous assumptions and presumptions but it was being shown as truth!  The sheer lunacy of the 'single cell' theory literally made me sick having to watch it. 

When parents start asking questions about what is being taught in schools is the day when the educational system in this country takes a turn for the better. It is tragic that, in my experience, most parents don't really seem to give a rip about what their child is being taught.  I applaud this young student for calling her school and this teacher on the carpet for showing this outlandish piece of liberal propaganda!

Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.

Substitute fall gal?

Believer

Is it possible Buford was used so that the regular teacher would not lose her job? And if the rerular knew of the session(2 hours+!!!) they should be fired as well. The sub may have been the dupe here and may have been paid good $$ to do it. Whats much to lose for the sub?

A response

Norto, don't bet on it. Sub teachers, at least where I teach, are subject to the same scrutiny as regular teachers. I can see how you arrived at your point. That day I was showing the evolution video I thought it was interesting that the teacher was in the building, yet involved in 'meetings'.  She never did show up to check in on the class like she told me she would.

One major advantage we have is that we can turn down an assignment in in order to accept another.  We are also exposed to various and sundry scenarios of academia and disciplines from school to school but are expected to put up with a lot of crap at schools that aren't so desirable to teach.

However, it does makes those of us who are subs a bit nervous when we are told to be the messengers of this propoganda.

That evolution theory, it'l

That evolution theory, it'll be the end of us...

That evolutionary theory, as

That evolutionary theory, as you rightly say, has been used as the justification for the killing of many millions of people. Evolution declares that I am my own God and I alone determine right and wrong, as in "There is no controlling legal authority." Scratch Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Margarer Sanger, and Rachel Carson and you'll find the same evil inside. Liberals all.

I was astounded one day to see that even WalMart was selling this film. I thought I had heard that it had a policy against selling pornography.

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

WOW. I had no idea evolutio

WOW. I had no idea evolution had a moral code built right in there! If I had known we were going to be making such huge jumps in logic, I would've worn better shoes.

You had no idea? Where do you

You had no idea? Where do you live, in the state of denial or under a rock? Without a creator God, who decides what is right or wrong? Oh, I remember - what's right for me may not be right for you so stay out of my face.

I respectfully submit to you the following article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/blood.asp

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

Without a creator God, who

Without a creator God, who decides what is right or wrong?

Um, someone else? People? Society? You? Me?

Nonetheless, it's nonsense to say if you believe in evolution you suddenly have no morals, ethics, values, etc.

Yes but your morals, ethics

Yes but your morals, ethics and values are baseless!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

properly speaking

His morals are either non-existent or at best optional. Yet many so-called believers are immoral. The main difference is, they might repent and receive God's mercy & forgiveness. An atheist won't. Period.

See my post below tumbler.

See my post below tumbler.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

And everchanging. God is the

And everchanging. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Right and wrong doesn't change as society does.

"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt

and yet it has.

and yet it has.

And that invalidates them s

And that invalidates them somehow? If I come to the realization that murder is wrong, that you shouldn't lie, that stealing is wrong, it doesn't really matter whether I discovered that through religion or through self realization.

Would you agree that you pr

Would you agree that you probably obtain your morals ,values and ethics from your parents? Generally speaking that is. If you agree with that, then where did they get theirs from? Probably their parents? I think if you go back far enough (not very far) you'll find that your ansestors got them from their belief in God and the bible, if they were christians. These are the values ethics and morals you should weigh against all you see from other sources (ie: school, TV, Friends).

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I know that, I understand t

I know that, I understand that. I'm saying, if I believe in evolution, that doesn't mean I have no morals.

Do you believe in God? &qu

Do you believe in God?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Why?

Why?

Just trying to figure out w

Just trying to figure out where to go next. :-)

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

A clarification

OK, everyone - do I have to explain myself? My bringing up having to show the evolution video as a substitue teacher was merely an example of letting all of you know what is being taught in our public schools today.

Whether it's that, Brokeback Mountain or some other piece of liberal propaganda, my point is that we need to take back the reigns of our taxpayer supported public school system.  Our kids are being fed intellectual garbage daily and it's time we got a handle on it or pull our kids out of this morass of education and put them in private schools or home school them.  

My daughter, who is an elementary education major, did this with my grandson,  is now home schooling him, and he is doing great. The school system he was in is currently classified as being in "academic emergency" with a rating of only 40% by the state.  

We need to stay on top of what's happening in the public schools - it's our money they're spending!

Hey, balboa opened the pand

Hey, balboa opened the pandoras box. :-) I'm willing to get back on track though...

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Definately a clear case for s

Definately a clear case for separation of school and state

Indeed

Evolution and Intelligent Design can co-exist... As such, it is quite easy to believe in evolution (I do) and have morals (I do). The problem is when you get to the people that think that one cannot exist if the other does.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

I completely agree. If some

I completely agree. If someone wants to only believe in creationism, fine. Go ahead. But I don't want people telling me that if I don't, I'm somehow lost morally.

Of course not

Whether someone wants to believe that somewhere in our genetic code, morality exists, or that only through the belief in God, morality exists -- either way, morality exists. The explanation as to the whys are somewhat pointless to the bottom line: it exists.

I can easily say that I believe in creationism and evolution because it is very easy to believe in both, and the shortcomings of both theories, can be explained by the other.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

 Mr B., it is logically impo

 Mr B., it is logically impossible to believe in both creationism and evolutionism. Take the starting premise: Creation states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Evolutionism says that everything created itself. If A=1 and B=2 then A != B. Why is that so hard to understand?

I can easily say that I believe in creationism and evolution because it is very easy to believe in both, and the shortcomings of both theories, can be explained by the other.

Shortcomings, you say? Evolutionism is nothing but shortcomings. It takes more faith than I could ever have to believe that everything came from nothing, all on its own, and that information can increase without intelligent input.

You know what I did one day? I put a handful of dirt in a shoe box and shook it. I shook it for days and days and days and days. Eventually I got tired of shaking it and set it under a big rock. Some time later I took it out from under the rock and put it in a pool of water. Later I took it out and shook it some more. When I opened the box there it was - a shiny new iPod! Complete with batteries! This is infinitely more likely than chemicals coming to life or anything increasing in complexity on its own.

Think about it. Do some serious research.

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

No it isn't

How can it be impossible to believe in both? The more powerful God, is the one that works within the confines of the laws of physics and time, not the one that ignores the laws that exist.

Creationism has far too many shortcomings. Evolution has shortcomings. The biggest shortcoming of Creationism, is time. The Bible specifies that the earth has only existed for about 6000 years. We know this is not true, since carbon dating, which is very accurate, shows bones that are millions of years old. The only explanation for this, is that of evolution. The only explanation as to the origin of the DNA strand, is not through random events that take place, but through the idea of Intelligent Design.

Please, don't tell me to "do some serious research", as I have read what you have written, and you ignore one absolute truth, in favor of saying, "Well, God did it..."

Now, it is far more likely, to be able to say that God took the laws of physics, and said, "Well... let's work within the confines of these laws, and see what happens..." Life does not evolve in the manner in which He wanted it, so He destroyed life (dinosaurs go extinct) to start over. This time, life evolves as He wants it to, so in time, He gives man a soul (creates man in His own image), and there we are. It is much more believeable to have them co-exist, as they answer each other's shortcomings, then to narrow-mindedly disregard one or the other because you don't believe one can exist, if the other does.

That was the only point I was making -- you don't believe in evolution -- fine by me, that's your own belief. However, your belief in pure creationism, cannot explain the time issues that exist in the Bible, instead you say you take it on faith. Great... congratulations. I'm not saying that you have to believe as I do, so don't preach to me, that I have to believe as you do, and don't tell me to do "serious research" because I have. I can explain the time problems in the Bible without the word "faith", and I can explain the origins of the DNA strand without the words, "random events".


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

 I was waiting for someone t

 I was waiting for someone to bring up carbon dating. That works for things up to 10,000 years old. Beyond that it's totally useless. How can coal and diamonds, which are supposedly millions of years old still have c14 in them?

Why do people try to place their own limitations on God? The Creator of the universe, its matter, energy, and laws cannot bend these laws to suit His porposes? This makes God something less than God. The initial creation was "very good." God created man and he became a living being. Sin and death entered the world through one man. There was no death before sin. If there was not a literal creation and a literal first man and a literal Fall, this means that there was death before sin and we have no need whatsoever for a Redeemer and we are to be pitied more than other men for our faith is in vain.

Ponder that, dude.

And yes the Earth and the universe are about 6000 years old. You could look it up. You could find the list of prominent scientists who attest to that fact.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Please don't think that I'm angry or arrogant. I'm trying to spread the Word as my lord Jesus commanded all Christians to do. I shall pray for your soul and its enlightenment as best I can as a sinful but repentant follower of Christ.

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

balboa, you forget

Hey; why has it never occurred to you; NOTHING can be "wrong" unless there is a Lawgiver. It can be reprehensible in one or another person's mind; but without noticeable consequences. The Lawgiver is God, not "religion". If HE is our Lawgiver, all of us must obey Him; and you'll be marginalizing your immortal soul in your sheer indifference. In which case, do every evil you feel inclined to. You may as well; because you're already damned by that indifference to God.

I have to agree with Balboa o

I have to agree with Balboa on this guys, as much as I am against the teaching of evolution without the mere mention of intelligence design, it is not the same as showing this foul movie.  And declaring one's values, ethics and morals as baseless is counter-productive, especially if those values etc are the same as yours.  Do we not all have the spirit of God within us?  So isn't it natural for men to recognize gross sin without being a Christian or even be an atheist? 

"So isn't it natural f

"So isn't it natural for men to recognize gross sin without being a Christian or even be an atheist?"

That would be "copy cat" morals, ethics and values. Just trying to point out that even an athiest has morals etc. instilled in him by his ansestors that are religious in nature. :-)

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

It's obvious that you don't u

It's obvious that you don't understand so I'll say it again:

If you believe in the religion of Evolutionism you have NO BASIS for morality.

Morality comes from God. He laid down the laws in Exodus 20. We call it "The Ten Commandments." Jesus restated the law in Matthew 22:

The Greatest Commandment

 34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

This is where your "morals, ethics, values, etc." come from. There is no other source.

Also consider 1 Peter 2:15 "For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. "

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

So where are Hindus getting

So where are Hindus getting there morals from? Or atheists? Or Muslims?

Well balboa, if you understan

Well balboa, if you understand the Adam and Eve story, or more recently Noah's, then you understand all people had God's religion, but became lost.  I do agree with you though, everyone has a sense of right and wrong.

 Sigh.Read the above. People

 Sigh.

Read the above. People may have morals but only believers in the God of the Bible have any BASIS for such. I can only presume that these others get their moral beliefs (abortion, sexual perversion, subjugation of infidels, elimination of the "mud people")  from themselves. Where else could they possibly come from?

Evolution says that I am just a cosmic accident with no purpose and no future so I can do whatever I bloody well please for there are no ultimate consequences. Do you disagree with that assessment?

I sugggest you actually read the linked article and comment on it.

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

Evolution says that I am ju

Evolution says that I am just a cosmic accident

OK. I'm with you so far...

with no purpose and no
future

I don't think evolution states that. You may choose to derive that from the theory of evolution.

so I can do whatever I bloody well please for there are no
ultimate consequences. Do you disagree with that assessment?

Um, disagree. Evolution has nothing to do with consequences, doesn't cover consequences, doesn't "say" you can do whatever you want. It's responsibility doesn't lie in dictating a moral code. It's a theory for how we got here.

Balboa,It's interesting that

Balboa,

It's interesting that Hoosier is proclaiming that Morals come from God and you need God to have morals.  Many, many biologists and psychiatrists have theorized that in fact, morals are a direct result of evolution.

Morals were essentially, in the ancestral environment, a strengthening of behaviors that increased a species chance for survival.  Don't kill your fellow man, love thy neighbor, do not cheat on your wife, etc.  These all have their roots in the ancestral environment.  These behaviors increased the chance that your genes could be passed on to the next generation. 

In this sense, morals are simply the result of behaviors that we have adopted as a species over 100s of thousands of years that have effectively suceeded in increasing our chance of survival.  Evolution created the basis for all of our morals.

Well, you're obviously a godl

Well, you're obviously a godless heathen come to tempt me into giving up my soul in the name of science, you sick, sick man.

BTW, this is starting to remind me of Angels & Demons, the Dan Brown book. Anyone here read it?

Tempt you Balboa?  I would n

Tempt you Balboa?  I would never try to lure to the side of evil and degradation.

:-) Lol. I appreciate you l

:-) Lol. I appreciate you looking out for my soul.

Could you guys get a room,

Could you guys get a room, please?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MM,ROFLMAO!Really, these publ

MM,

ROFLMAO!

Really, these public displays of affection are most unbecoming.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz.

My fault, my bad. I'll keep

My fault, my bad. I'll keep all discussions about the future of my soul out of the general messageboard area. :-)

Bal,Lighten up, will ya?You h

Bal,

Lighten up, will ya?

You have to admit that MM's comment was funny as hell.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz.

I did! That's why I put the

I did! That's why I put the smiley face!

Theorised? What proof can you

Theorised? What proof can you offer? Can you name any names?

Morals were essentially, in the ancestral environment, a strengthening of behaviors that increased a species chance for survival.

No, not species - INDIVIDUAL. It's obvious you don't understand what evolutionism means either. Only the strongest survive. One of the ways to do that is to spread your seed as far and wide as possible and eliminate the competition.

These behaviors increased the chance that your genes could be passed on to the next generation.

Hmmm, sounds a lot like when a new male lion takes over the pride, drives off the other males and kills all their offspring. Or conquering a population and leaving only the breeding-age females alive. Or creating a "master race" while eliminating the inferiors (Nazi eugenics, also practiced by Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood).

There was a time when only eight people in the world accepted God's morality. All the rest died in the Flood.

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

Evolution is indeed based upo

Evolution is indeed based upon the survival of individuals.  The development of society and societal norms, such as morality, is an extension of the basic tenet of evolution.  Society increases the chance of survival for the individual (along with many other individuals), thus it fits into the evolutionary framework perfectly.

There are many journals in which you can find articles supporting my initial hypothesis, however, you have to pay for them.  A nice service that provides articles from a myriad of journals is called PsycInfo, unfortunately I believe you can only get access to this in a university setting.  The second best option is to simply type, "Evolutionary psychology morals" into a google search.

You'll get plenty of hits and I think you'll find it to be interesting reading.  I apologize but I simply don't have the time to create a bibliography for you.

Leanon

"The development of society and societal norms, such as morality, is an extension of the basic tenet of evolution. "

Absurd --it is the tenets of religion that have resulted in the laws. Please spend some time re-reading the Constitution. Or--get John Diamond's excellent book, "The Rise of America". It explains the intent of the Founding fathers and the fact that the Bible is the moral compass of America and the Constitution.

As for me, personally. I am not wise enough or knowledgable enough to debate most of the issues. Poor me, I am comfortable with my belief that Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive beliefs.

Evolutionism has everything t

Evolutionism has everything to do with consequences. The religion of evolutionism declares that there is no God. If I don't have to face my Creator when I die, what does it matter what I do? There would be no eternal consequences. You only go around once in this life so you might as well have a good time. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Evolutionism is a (poor) substitute for a moral code - "Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, head of UNESCO, descendant of Thomas Huxley -- Darwin's bulldog -- said on a talk show, 'I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.' (Henry M. Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, Creation-Life Publishers, 1974, p. 58)."

Since you obviously haven't read the article I pointed out to you, here it is...

The blood-stained ‘century of evolution’

by Carl Wieland

Those attacking Christianity sometimes point to the many religious wars and atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christ and the Church. They forget that not everyone self-labeled ‘Christian’ truly follows Christ. Also, that many times more people have been killed this century, most by their own governments, than in all religious conflicts, ever.1 And this slaughter happened because of philosophies openly hostile to biblical Christianity, and flowing directly from evolutionary belief.

Nazism openly proclaimed its dependence on Darwin.2 It was right and moral for the strongest race to survive; to have pity for the weak was to defy nature’s laws. It is doubtful whether this brutal ideology would have so captivated the nation that gave us Bach and Luther if not for the ‘scientific’ underpinning of evolution.

Communism also took evolution to its logical conclusion. If everything just evolved from ‘natural law,’ then man’s opinion, not God’s Word, determines what is right and wrong. If the working class can take power by armed struggle, then this is ‘right,’ regardless of how many must die to bring in the socialist paradise. Communism’s death toll far outranks the Nazis’—probably more than 90 million worldwide.3

Some have suggested that the bloodthirsty deeds of Stalin were an ‘aberration’ from the revolution’s ideals. However, it was Lenin, the ‘father’ of the Russian revolution, who ‘perfected the science of mass killings,’ and total, merciless brutality as the ultimate method of political control.4 Evolution was the chief tool used to brainwash communism’s masses into ‘scientific atheism.’ If everything just evolved, then everything is at the whim of the most powerful, and there is no Maker to whom to be answerable. Hence Stalin’s belief that killing millions of people was no worse than mowing your lawn (grass is our cousin in evolutionary doctrine).

Mao’s reign of terror and lies resulted in the deaths of tens of millions. It is no coincidence that his two favorite books were by the evolutionists Darwin and Huxley. With millions dying from his forced famine, his physician records that Mao said, ‘We have so many people we can afford to lose a few.’5 His successors have since persecuted and killed hundreds of thousands more.

Such overt ‘state’ evil makes it easy to forget what the Bible teaches about the evil within all of fallen mankind. Despite communism’s decline, the basic philosophy of evolutionism (i.e. man’s opinion, not God’s, is the ultimate authority) remains securely in control. They’re not shooting people scrambling over the Berlin Wall anymore, but millions of people are being torn apart in their mother’s womb in ‘democratic’ countries.

Today, the ideology of the ultra-free market, directly related to Darwinian ‘might is right,’ is on the rise. The Bible of course affirms private property, and the free and fair exchange of goods. However, at the same time it endorses civil government as a necessary restraint upon the sinful nature of mankind. Even the billionaire speculator George Soros has warned against unfettered ‘survival of the fittest’ capitalism. He says ‘What used to be a medium of exchange has usurped the place of fundamental values. Being successful is not identical with being right.’6

Soros’s comments make sense only if there are such things as immutable values and inalienable rights. But these cannot exist unless there is a Creator God Who has revealed such truths infallibly to His creation.

Thus, the creation/evolution issue is not just about origins; it is the key to which authority source will be seen as foundational in human affairs—God, through His revealed Word, or man’s opinion. May God be pleased to keep on using Creation magazine widely in spreading these vital, foundational gospel truths.

References and notes

  1. About 130 million (not including the hundreds of millions killed by abortion) were slaughtered this century in the name of atheism, whereas all those killed in ‘the name of Christ’ in all of recorded history was at most around 17 million. See James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What if Jesus had never been born?, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1994. Return to text.
  2. Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith wrote: ‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, New York, p. 230, 1947. Return to text.
  3. Black Book of Communism, The Courier-Mail Weekend, Brisbane, p. 8, 13 December 1997. Return to text.
  4. Men who taught the world to hate, The Sunday Mail, Brisbane, p. 67, 6 July 1997. Return to text.
  5. The Great Dying, The Sunday Mail, Brisbane, pp. 59–60, 2 February 1997. Return to text.
  6. G. Soros, in News Weekly, p. 24, 8 February 1997. Return to text.

Available online at:
http://www.answersin...
COPYRIGHT © 2007 Answers in Genesis

Maybe the problem is that you don't understand what evolutionism really is. Look at the tag line below and ponder it.

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

Yyyeah, I already read it,

Yyyeah, I already read it, but thanks.

If I don't have to face my Creator when I die, what does it matter what I do?

You still have to face yourself, friends, families, society, laws, courts, etc.

And just because Hitler, et al, perverted evolution for their own purposes doesn't mean the theory is responsible or caused it. And you're for Darwinism in the corporate world, aren't you?

You still have to face yourse

You still have to face yourself, friends, families, society, laws, courts, etc.

So what? What can they do to me? Can they separate me from God for eternity? It doesn't matter what any PERSON thinks of me. It matters what God thinks of me. In some cultures it is permissible to have multiple wives, sometimes just for one night. Just because society says it's okay that doesn't make it right. Some societies think its a good thing to teach children to hate and kill Jews. That must be okay because friends, families, society, laws, and courts say it is.

And just because Hitler, et al, perverted evolution for their own purposes doesn't mean the theory is responsible or caused it.

Sigh. You still don't understand. These people did not pervert evolutionism, they PRACTICED IT!

And you're for Darwinism in the corporate world, aren't you?

I presume you mean "Social Darwinism?" Or do you mean that businesses just spring up from nothing and become more complex on their own with no intelligent input? THAT is Darwinism! Oh, wait, maybe you meant "natural selection" where you either adapt to conditions or you die. Did you know that this is a Creationist concept? (Natural selection is really a very straight-forward, commonsense insight. A creationist, the chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810—1873), wrote about it in 1835—7, before Darwin, who very likely borrowed the idea from Blyth)

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

So what? What can they do t

So what? What can they do to me?

Shun you? Ostracize you? Imprison you? Execute you?

Sigh. You still don't understand. These people did not pervert evolutionism, they PRACTICED IT!

Not really. They enforced their PERVERSION of evolution. There's no proof that the German race is in any way superior to those they sought to exterminate. If they were actually practicing actual evolution, they'd just let things be, evolve naturally.

And in terms of corporations I mean "the strong survive."

Shun you? Ostracize you? Impr

Shun you? Ostracize you? Imprison you? Execute you?

Again - so what? What do I care?

They enforced their PERVERSION of evolution. There's no proof that the German race is in any way superior to those they sought to exterminate. If they were actually practicing actual evolution, they'd just let things be, evolve naturally.

They surely thought they would be superior. Read up on the concept of what Nietzsche would maintain we could be: Der Ubermunsch, The Overman/Superman.  That's the logical conclusion of evolutionism. Besides that, things simply don't "evolve" unless I completely misunderstand what you're talking about. Actually, I don't either of us understand what you're talking about.

And in terms of corporations I mean "the strong survive."Ah, so we're back to the Creationist concept of natural selection. Good for you!

It's been fun but I have to go now. I'll pray for your soul.

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

Romans 2:13For it is not th

Romans 2:13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight,
but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed,
when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by
the law, they are a law for themselves
, even though they do not have
the law, 15since they show
that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their
consciences also bearing witness
, and their thoughts now accusing, now
even defending them.)
The Lord has written his law upon your heart.

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Talk sense to a
liberal and he calls you a racist, sexist, biggot, homophobe, denier.

The other thing that infuri

The other thing that infuriates me about this is the mention of "parental notification", and the issue of "opting out." When they actually do notify parents, they allow parents to "opt out" for their kids.

Let's face it, kids don't always bring home papers for their parents to sign. That's one prolbem...the parents might not get the paper. And if they didn't want to "opt out", to avoid calling attention to themselves (which I believe is the whole point of the policy) they certainly won't be inclined to have their parents sign the paper. So why not have an "opt-IN" policy instead? Notify the parents, and they have to sign a paper that actually says their kid is ALLOWED to attend the class or see the movie, or whatever. I can pretty much guarantee that they would not have nearly the number of kids to propagandize in the class if they went that route.

Once my wife and I adopt, I a

Once my wife and I adopt, I am so looking forward to homeschooling that child.

Your comment is doubly beauti

Your comment is doubly beautiful. Ged bless you, your wife, and your future child.

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

Liberal activism at it's finest!

What ever happend to just teaching a class and having students learn actual applied skils? Now we all have to have our children "feel" and "grow" and "experience" crap like this?  What crap do universities tell teaching majors these days? But if you want outrage from the liberal community how about a screening of Jesus of Nazareth to a closed door "don't tell" classroom of 8th graders.

This story does really highli

This story does really highlight the multilayered failures of our educational system.
Oh, for the old days where the three R's were what mattered.
Now it's indoctrination....

Just some more evidence of th

Just some more evidence of the moral degradation of our public school system. 

By telling these children what happens in the class stays in the class this person know what she was about to do was wrong. 

The bunch needs to fired.

"By telling these chil

"By telling these children what happens in the class stays in the class..."

AF, it's like what child molesters (who could also be trusted by the family) tell their victims "don't tell anyone, it's our little secret". I'm not saying the teacher is a child molester, I am just saying it's the same MO.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MM, you are spot on.  It is

MM, you are spot on.  It is also the MO of most people with an agenda that is wrong.

What possible good did showing this movie do these children?  None.

What value?

None.

Did she show it to garner sympathy for gay rights?

I don't care!  Show that to my child and you are going to pay a very high price in court.

As a matter of fact she should be in jail for sexual assault.

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne

 

 

Will the Las Vegas Chamber of

Will the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce follow suit and seek damages from Ms. Buford for using their slogan for nefarious purposes?

"B.M." is rated R, and it was shown to children under age 17 without a parent or guardian? This is wrong in so many ways.

*****

"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello

AF, it's like what child mo

AF, it's like what child molesters (who could also be trusted by the
family) tell their victims "don't tell anyone, it's our little secret".
I'm not saying the teacher is a child molester, I am just saying it's
the same MO.-
-MightyMouth

MM, in many places showing children pornography IS considered abuse, and from the comment above by someone who saw this movie, it pretty much straddles the line.

Can you imagine the outrage if a group of homeschooling parents screened this for their kids? Public school teachers and administrators would be using it as evidence that homeschooling should be oulawed.

mother, I am still surprise

mother, I am still surprised that home schooling in general has to defend itself. Especially considering the drop out rates of the public school system. Could it be that home schooling has the interest of the child at heart, while the public school system has at it's goal; preservation of the teachers unions?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Like I said, this is a clear

Like I said, this is a clear case of why we need separation of school and state

Unfortunately, that is true;

Unfortunately, that is true; the teachers' union is paramount. And the bureaucrats who run the schools have no respect for parents. They think of homeschooling as a kind of "cult". They have no faith in parents' ability to teach their own children. And they think that because their teachers have degrees, they are the ones to judge what should and shouldn't be taught to the kids.

Substitutes

I like Brokeback Mountain, it was a fairly moving love story, better than a lot of the tripe that passes for movies.

But I would be horrified to learn my middle-school aged children had watched this or any other R-rated movie in class without my explicit permission. The substitute should be barred from teaching and if administration officials knew about this, they too should face punishment.

Also, side not on the movie, I'm not sure how well you could use it as an "indoctrination." The movie is a pretty harsh view of what gay-life is like for some and how it can be so destructive.

An earlier post hit the nail

An earlier post hit the nail on the head RoL. It may not have depicted a selectively positive portrayal of Gaydom, but it would definitely serve to at least desensitize these children to this "alternative" lifestyle. As there was absolutely no educational benefit to showing this film, this desensitization seems the most likely reason for exposing a class to it.

The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers

No reaction at all

"Granted most of these comments are from people enthralled with the film but they are essentially adults who claim the film left an emotional mark. This of course can happen both ways, for some it may have been emotionally draining in a positive way and for others it may be emotionally devastating in a negative way."

For me, it didn't produce any kind of emotional reaction.  I thought it was the most unbelievable and boring "love story" I've ever watched.  If you took that same story and substituted a heterosexual couple for the homosexual couple, no one would want to watch it. 

If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.

WOW! That's craziness. Talk

WOW! That's craziness. Talk about poor judgement.

BTW, 12-year-old in 8th grade? That's about 2 years younger than standard.

"BTW, 12-year-old in 8

"BTW, 12-year-old in 8th grade? That's about 2 years younger than standard"

Yeah, she must have been home schooled thru elementry. :-)

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

In Illinois, the cut-off da

In Illinois, the cut-off date for entering kindergarten is (was?) "5 years old by mid-December." I went to college with several women who started kindergarten at 4.

See Amigo, two good answers

See Amigo, two good answers to your question. Next "accusation"?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

It wasn't an accusation, ju

It wasn't an accusation, just an observation. Most 8th graders are 13-14 years old.

"wasn't an accusation,

"wasn't an accusation, just an observation"

Oh, well excuuuuusssse me then :-) You had a "tone". (or maybe I've had too much coffee)

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

bal ---12 in 8th grade?

bal ---12 in 8th grade? That was the norm in my day. I turned 17 two months before I graduated HS and I was not the youngest in my class.

I guess there are always ex

I guess there are always exceptions. What the hell do I know. :-)

Left Wing Religion

These left wing nut cases exibit more zelotry than any religion.  Can you imagine shutting the classroom door and showing this thing to 8th grade students?  There is no consideration as to what the parents might want their children to see. If nothing else, commom courtesy should have caused them to realize that some parents would be offended by the showing of this movie to their children. But it's all because they know, beyond any doubt, that their cause is just and right.  Left Wing Liberialism IS their religion and they will cheat, steal and lie for it until the day they die.

At first I thought the dollar

At first I thought the dollar amount might be too much, but they really need to make an example of this teacher so this sort of thing doesn't happen again. I don't even like it when they show Disney movies in class at my kid's school.  I think "Patton" would be okay shown in context with a history lesson or even "The Patriot" but this teacher was asking to be fired.

I was thinking the same thing

I was thinking the same thing, comrade. I am half-tempted to sue my elementary school for subjecting me to "The Strongest Man in the World", "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes", and "The Apple Dumpling Gang" while growing up.

The only feature movie that w

The only feature movie that was ever shown at my elementary school was afterschool one day the sixth grade teacher showed "The Mouse that Roared" back to back with "The Mouse on the Moon".  It was over most of the students heads but nobody seemed to care. 

What do the unions say?

The NEA and AFT are the backbone of the Democratic Party. The homosexual agenda is a major platform in the party.  The substitute  teacher followed the agenda.  She may not be a union member, but I bet the unions will support her. The parents have every right to sue.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.  Inside of a dog, it's too dark  to read. -- Groucho Marx

 First of all, what do you t

 First of all, what do you think the reaction would be if 12-year olds were shown an "R" rated hetro film invloving graphic sex?

Secondly, people should be showing the same outrage on the mandated classroom viewing of the Goracle's film. Or ANY product, film or book, without factual and/or educational benefits. I have no problem using both sides of a controversial issue for discussion purposes. For example, if they want to stimulate discussion on Global Warming, and they show An Inconvenient Truth, they need to also show films rebutting Gore's position and let the kids work out the issue for themselves. The same goes for politics and most other social issues. It is the job of teachers, ESPECIALLY in a child's formative years, to provide both sides of an issue, and allow the student make up their own mind on where they stand. Teachers, in general, are role models with an exhorbitant amount of influence on how a child's thought processes will work throughout their later lives.

Sex education, in a limited form, I feel is appropriate to 12-year-olds, as this is about the point where they could (and often do) become sexually active. They need to know how to deal with this sexuality. I'm not saying they should be taught the "morals" of such activity. That is rightly a job for parents. If nothing else, they need to be taught the possible reprecussions of it, as this is a subject many parents are extremely uncomfortable with.

But to use sexually explicit R-rated hollywood "entertainment" productions, hetro or homo,  into the classroom is beyond inappropriate. What's next? "Debbie Does Everybody"? That'll show the kids exactly how it's done...

The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers

It is in the left's agenda to

It is in the left's agenda to make homosexuality "normal". Just watch a couple of episodes of Will and Grace.

ahusser,That is all I ever co

ahusser,

That is all I ever could get through of that show...and not all the way on either one.

I find it beyond sad what is so-called family entertainment anymore.

These people will rue the day they all keep trying to cram things down all of our throats....another generation of mindless leftist idiots...they hope.

Agenda agenda agenda.

Check out some of the disgu

Check out some of the disgusting comments about this issue on "Brokeback's" IMDB forum (you'll probably need to log in):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/board/nest/74262031?p=1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/board/nest/74262031?p=2

okay - where do I start - fir

okay - where do I start - first off, B Mountain was far from pornographic - one scene in the tent and there was no nudity - you see more nude body parts on Fox News - I agree the teacher should not have shown this w/out permission, but like I said, this was not a porno movie - and Ahusser, I've got a news flash for you - homosexuality IS normal, it's been around since the dawn of time -and lastly to you Hoosier Daddy - I'd just like to know why you are so certain YOUR GOD is "the way"

Katlee---

In my opinion, homosexuality is an aberration. That being said, I am sure I have aberrations of some kind. The issue here is that tweeners and teeners are in the surge of sexual development and the depths of confusion. I happen to be a person who believes MOST homosexuality is not by choice. I am a slow typist, so I will not go into the knowledge in my life that made me say MOST. I do NOT want my grandchildren to be introduced to an alternate lifestyle at the age of the girl in the schools. Even more important, it is totally wrong for a school to be involved in this effort. IMHO, it is an effort by educators to help young people to know of these lifestyles and to not condemn them. Please show me any written article anywhere that dictates that is the role of the educational system. This is forced tolerance---yes, I said forced tolerance---how can there be such a thing?? I believe in the last 20 years our educators have become missionaries. If that is their objective in life they should be stripped of their teaching certificates and summarily discharged. You may not be a homosexual--but I believe you to be one or you have someone you love who is one. Good for you, and I am glad that you love them and have no problem with their orientation. Neither do I! Again, I say, my issue is, do not enter our schools and try to FORCE our young ones into accepting a way of life or a principle which is alien to being educated. Please let the schools teach the three Rs and attendant subjects.

God created us all, God loves us all, whether we are homo or hetero. Were this action to have been performed on a college campus, I would not even raise an eyebrow. Let my grandchildren have their youth. No group's aims should deprive them of the years of childhood and innocence.

first off, B Mountain was far

first off, B Mountain was far from pornographic

Uhhh, two guys butt-f###ing each other is not pornographic?

"The film graphically shows a sexual relationship between two men and presents it as something that should have been allowed to flourish openly in society rather than be squelched by hypocritical people. In one scene, a shirtless man is lying down behind another man having unconventional sex with him. "

 I've got a news flash for you - homosexuality IS normal, it's been around since the dawn of time

You couldn't be more wrong. Homosexuality is an abombination which Scripture condemns. It is a choice. It is possible to renounce it. God did not create homosexuality. It is a result of the Fall.

Exodus 20:14  "You shall not commit adultery." This statement condemns all sexual relations outside of marriage. Marriage is, as God has declared, the union of one man and one woman for life.

1 Corinthians 6:9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now, please understand that as a Christian I do NOT condemn anyone who choses (yes, choses) to engage in a homosexual life. We are to love the sinner and hate the sin. We are to reach out to those in need and help lift them up. I freely admit that I am a sinner. However, I am a repentant and forgiven sinner. I pray that you will find the same peace in Christ that I have.

-and lastly to you Hoosier Daddy - I'd just like to know why you are so certain YOUR GOD is "the way"...

John 14:5-7 -- Jesus the Way to the Father

 5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

What part of this don't you understand? When the Creator of the universe speaks, we ought to listen.

God's blessings to you.

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.

Government schools = child abuse.

This is what happens when you send a child to a government school. If you cannot afford to send them to a decent school, then don't have children.

Government schools = child abuse.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz.

"Let me control the text

"Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state."

-Adolf Hitler

Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.