School board meeting in North Carolina about a book

[We Never Know]

I tend to agree with the man about "if you don't want to hear it".

Watch the 3 1/2 minute video then give your thoughts

Spoiler: Nudity

 

[Curious George]

Seems a little dramatic. I can’t imagine such fanfare is necessary. If the pastor has a complaint he can share it with the school board surely. But ultimately, he should let the schools school and the parents parent. If he doesn’t want his children reading that book he should make sure that he 1) is aware of the media his children consume, and 2) has clear communication with his children about his expectations for their media consumption and, ideally, his reasons for such expectations.

And as for the rhetorical question: a school board meeting is not the appropriate forum for an impromptu sex ed lesson, especially when one is just reading from a book. So, I think the man’s point fails. I don’t think anyone was so traumatized by any of the words the man read.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I watched the entire video. While I think it's valid to discuss the appropriate age for sex education, this guy's tone, substance, and delivery all scream demagoguery and religious zeal. I really hope someone more reasonable and not religiously extremist discussed that same book afterward, because I don't think it's appropriate for 10-year-olds to have access to drawings and detailed descriptions of sexual acts at a school library. About this video, though:

• The first thing he did was open the book to nude drawings and try to argue that they were "pornographic" just because they were nude. That's a non sequitur: it's perfectly possible for nudity to be presented in a non-sexual manner, and this is done in multiple countries. Nudity can be artistic, illustrative (as in a biology book), or simply activity-based (e.g., when at the beach or in a sauna). So this pastor is trying to normalize his own hang-up about nudity as if it were obligatory for everyone else to share his views.

• The way he's speaking, by yelling and trying to rouse the attendance, is not fitting for anyone who is supposedly trying to present a reasonable case for a major decision: taking a book out of a school library in a constitutionally secular country. It doesn't matter what he believes the Bible says, and his "God > Gov" hoodie essentially sums up the theocratic mindset that some fundamentalists exhibit when they want to impose their worldview on others in a public institution such as a school.
  
  I almost cringed when he said, "I get my talking points from the B-I-B-L-E" as if that were supposed to grant him more authority. So what? Are other parents and their children supposed to have their lives and education altered by talking points from the Bible? It's that entitled, theocratic mindset on display again.

• It was another non sequitur when he mentioned DEI, a set of initiatives and policies that have nothing to do with the book to which he was objecting. It almost feels like he was just cramming ideological and emotional buzzwords into his three-minute speech.

For all of the talk about "gender ideology," it seems to me that some of the most conspicuous examples of gender ideology come from theocratically minded extremists whose gender ideology is rooted in rigid traditionalism, dogma, and unscientific stereotypes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could have a lot of fun with the Bible playing the same game that the pastor did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I watched the entire video. While I think it's valid to discuss the appropriate age for sex education, this guy's tone, substance, and delivery all scream demagoguery and religious zeal. I really hope someone more reasonable and not religiously extremist discussed that same book afterward, because I don't think it's appropriate for 10-year-olds to have access to drawings and detailed descriptions of sexual acts at a school library. About this video, though:

• The first thing he did was open the book to nude drawings and try to argue that they were "pornographic" just because they were nude. That's a non sequitur: it's perfectly possible for nudity to be presented in a non-sexual manner, and this is done in multiple countries. Nudity can be artistic, illustrative (as in a biology book), or simply activity-based (e.g., when at the beach or in a sauna). So this pastor is trying to normalize his own hung-up about nudity as if it were obligatory for everyone else to share his views.
• The way he's speaking, by yelling and trying to rouse the attendance, is not fitting for anyone who is supposedly trying to present a reasonable case for a major decision: taking a book out of a school library in a constitutionally secular country. It doesn't matter what he believes the Bible says, and his "God > Gov" hoodie essentially sums up the theocratic mindset that some fundamentalists exhibit when they want to impose their worldview on others in a public institution such as a school.
  
  I almost cringed when he said, "I get my talking points from the B-I-B-L-E" as if that were supposed to grant him more authority. So what? Are other parents and their children supposed to have their lives and education altered by talking points from the Bible? It's that entitled, theocratic mindset on display again.
• It was also another non sequitur when he mentioned DEI, a set of initiatives and policies that have nothing to do with the book to which he was objecting. It almost feels like he was just cramming ideological and emotional buzzwords into his three-minute speech.

For all of the talk about "gender ideology," it seems to me that some of the most conspicuous examples of gender ideology come from theocratically minded extremists whose gender ideology is rooted in rigid traditionalism, dogma, and unscientific stereotypes.

That book has nothing compared to the Bible. What we heard was a very clinical description. The Bible has this:

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.


The book in question is not cheering for the positive aspects of a big ****.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That book has nothing compared to the Bible. What we heard was a very clinical description. The Bible has this:

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

To be fair, I have seen some Christians say that children shouldn't be exposed to certain passages of the Bible before a certain age, such as the story about the incestuous sex involving Lot and his daughters. I don't know what this pastor thinks regarding that, but it would be inconsistent and irresponsible for him not to oppose reading out those passages to children. Perhaps he does oppose that, for all we know.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would kneel in front of this courageous parent.

I am really, really, really disgusted by the person who wanted to interrupt him.

He is not allowed to read it out loud, but it's okay for a prepubescent to read it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be fair, I have seen some Christians say that children shouldn't be exposed to certain passages of the Bible before a certain age, such as the story about the incestuous sex involving Lot and his daughters. I don't know what this pastor thinks regarding that, but it would be inconsistent and irresponsible for him not to oppose reading out those passages to children. Perhaps he does oppose that, for all we know.

Children should not be exposed to either without guidance. This appears to be a textbook for a class. So it would be shown with supervision.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would kneel in front of this courageous parent.

I am really, really, really disgusted by the person who wanted to interrupt him.

He is not allowed to read it allowed, but it's okay for a prepubescent to read it?

He was not being honest by cherry picking. How would he confront someone pointing out that the Bible shows that women like men with donkey ****s? By the way, I am cherry picking in my example, but only because he was guilty of that first.

 

[Estro Felino]

That book has nothing compared to the Bible. What we heard was a very clinical description. The Bible has this:

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.


The book in question is not cheering for the positive aspects of a big dick.

These are the translations for Ancient Hebrew scholars.
In some countries the Bible translations available for the public are approved of by the Conference of Bishops.
The okayed translations are more edulcorated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These are the translations for Ancient Hebrew scholars.
In some countries the Bible translation available for the public are approved of by the Conference of Bishops.

It is what the Bible says. If you oppose the book you have to oppose the Bible.

 

[Estro Felino]

He was not being honest by cherry picking. How would he confront someone pointing out that the Bible shows that women like men with donkey dicks? By the way, I am cherry picking in my example, but only because he was guilty of that first.

Reading the Bible is not in the curricula, first of all.
And secondly, I can't see the point of that explicit book, since middle schoolers have already biology books where the human anatomy is explained. So all apparatuses. The digestive, the cardiac, and the sexual one. The biology curricula do include human procreation.

 

[Valjean]

The effects of hiding sexuality and declaring it filth are clear in this pastor. He was "protected" from it as a schoolboy and now look how uncomfortable he is with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reading the Bible is not in the curricula, first of all.
And secondly, I can't see the point of that explicit book, since middle schoolers have already biology books where the human anatomy is explained. So all apparatuses. The digestive, the cardiac, and the sexual one. The biology curricula do include human procreation.

The point sailed over your head. The pastor called the book "pornographic." It is not even close to being pornographic. He praised the Bible. According to his own standards the Bible is incredibly pornographic so he is being hypocritical when he praises the Bible and condemns that textbook.

 

[Estro Felino]

The effects of hiding sexuality and declaring it filth are clear in this pastor. He was "protected" from it as a schoolboy and now look how uncomfortable he is with it.

I don't understand why he was interrupted, though.
If it's so normal to read that book, why was he interrupted?

 

[Estro Felino]

The point sailed over your head. The pastor called the book "pornographic." It is not even close to being pornographic. He praised the Bible. According to his own standards the Bible is incredibly pornographic so he is being hypocritical when he praises the Bible and condemns that textbook.

Would you have interrupted him, as well, by chance?
If the content of that book is perfectly okay, why did that man interrupt the pastor?

It really doesn't add up.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reading the Bible is not in the curricula, first of all.
And secondly, I can't see the point of that explicit book, since middle schoolers have already biology books where the human anatomy is explained. So all apparatuses. The digestive, the cardiac, and the sexual one. The biology curricula do include human procreation.

Middle School I was reading Star Wars and Edgar Allen Poe. Why would any student want ti stick to just textbooks? Does no one in Italy read unless forced to?

 

[Valjean]

I don't understand why he was interrupted, though.
If it's so normal to read that book, why was he interrupted?

I assume either that the moderators were uncomfortable with the content, the pastor had sufficiently made his point, or a predetermined time limit had been reached -- or some combination of these.

 

[Estro Felino]

I assume either that the moderators were uncomfortable with the content, the pastor had sufficiently made his point, or a predetermined time limit had been reached -- or some combination of these.

I don't think that there was such a short limit of time.
I do believe the moderator was uncomfortable listening to the graphic description of heterosexual intercourse.

Which is unbelievably incoherent and really unbearable behavior.
If he is uncomfortable reading that material, why is it considered okay for fifth-graders?

 

[Valjean]

So that they won't grow up as repressed and uncomfortable with sexuality as he is.