The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) problematic annual exploitation of public schools through the Day of Silence takes place on April 15, 2011. In light of how successful GLSEN and every other homosexuality-affirming organization and blogger have been in exploiting recent tragic teen suicides, it is even more imperative that conservatives take a stand against the use of public education to normalize homosexuality.

A national coalition of conservative leaders and organizations are again sponsoring the Day of Silence Walkout. We are asking parents to find out if their children’s schools are permitting students and/or teachers to refuse to speak in class during the Day of Silence. If they will be permitting student or teacher silence during instructional time, we are urging parents to call their children out of school to protest the use of the classroom for the purpose of promoting controversial moral and political views.

Other than the Day of Silence Walkout, there are virtually no organized public efforts designed to tell school administrators, board members, and faculty that many parents do not want their children exposed to homosexuality-affirming activities, resources, or events. We are hoping and praying that parents and guardians across the country will participate in the Day of Silence Walkout which is sponsored by a national coalition of pro-family organizations and leaders.

Over the past few years, the number of homosexuality-affirming events that take place in public schools has increased, at least in part because of the ignorance, cowardice, and acquiescence of conservative parents. In addition to the Day of Silence, we now have No Name-Calling Week sponsored by GLSEN; Ally Week sponsored by GLSEN; Spirit Day sponsored by Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); National Coming Out Day sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC); and the Transgender Day of Remembrance sponsored by the HRC.

Ten states have now passed “enumerated” anti-bullying policies, which require that schools specifically address homosexuality, bisexuality, and “transgenderism” in their anti-bullying policies and programs.

And if that’s not enough, both a House and Senate version of the Safe Schools Improvement Act have been proposed which, if passed, would prohibit schools from receiving funding to combat drugs and violence unless they also address homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder (or what schools euphemistically refer to as “transgenderism”) in their anti-bullying policies and programs.

The ultimate goal of all homosexuality-affirming organizations is not to end bullying. The ultimate goal is either the eradication of the belief that homosexual acts are immoral or the creation of a social and legal climate that make it impossible for conservative beliefs to be expressed. Homosexual activists and their ideological allies exploit legitimate anti-bullying sentiment to implement programs and institutionalize events like the Day of Silence in order to transform the moral beliefs of the nation’s youth.

If we don’t actively oppose the presence of homosexuality-affirming activities, programs, and resources, they will very soon appear in every elementary school in the country. Homosexual activists and their allies understand that it’s easier to capture the hearts and minds of 16-year-olds than 26-year-olds and easier still to capture the hearts and minds of 6-year-olds.

Far too few parents are aware that some school boards and courts have decided that when homosexuality-affirming resources are embedded in anti-bullying curricula or activities, parents have no right to be notified ahead of time and no right to opt out. In most places, however, parents still have the legal right to oppose in word and deed the exploitation of government schools for the purposes of undermining parental values and advancing unproven moral, political, and philosophical beliefs. And parents will always retain the moral right to do so.

If we hope to limit the damage done to individuals, society, speech rights, parental rights, and religious liberty, we must act with courage now. If we don’t, we cede a vital battlefield on which the Left will be able to train and multiply new generations of homosexuality-affirming disciples using public funds. Because of our fear and inertia, we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren a corrosive educational environment, diminished rights, and unthinkable cultural oppression. In addition, we will teach our children by example to be cowardly conformists.

From experience, we have learned that public school administrations respond to only three things:

• Bad PR
• A huge community outcry, which rarely happens because courageous conservatives who are willing to suffer for truth are tragically few
• Loss of funds.

The Day of Silence Walkout will result in at least the loss of funds. Every student absence costs schools between $30-80 per day.

How evil do the ideas to which our children are exposed have to become and how young the children to whom these evil ideas are presented before the conservative community will say “No more.” The Day of Silence is not centrally about ending bullying. It’s centrally about eradicating true beliefs about homosexuality.

The Bible repeatedly warns that Christians will be persecuted, mocked, reviled, scorned, and hated for the cause of Christ’s Kingdom. When will we demonstrate our willingness to endure such suffering for Christ, our children, our freedom, and truth?

A dog barks when his master is attacked.
I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.
~John Calvin

Read more: Click HERE to get more details about the Walkout.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

There are approximately 180 days in a typical school year, and it appears that homosexual activists and their ideological compatriots would like to spend part of each and every one on homosexual indoctrination.

We’ve got the Day of Silence, which is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN); Spirit Day sponsored by Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); Ally Weeksponsored by GLSEN; National Coming Out Day sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC); the Transgender Day of Remembrance sponsored by the HRC; and GLBT History Month, which is endorsed by virtually every homosexuality-affirming organization. It might just be easier to have a Federal law mandating Daily Homosexuality Affirmations. They can replace the ever so unpopular nano-moments of silence.

Although, homosexual activists and their “allies” are inveterate propagandists, they aren’t stupid. They know they can’t come straight out and say, “Our learning objective is eradicate the belief that homosexual acts are immoral or to humiliate conservative kids into silence.” So, instead they exploit bullying and suicide to achieve that goal without ever telling taxpayers what moral mischief they’re up to.

This week is “No Name-Calling Week,” a devilish creation of — surprise surprise — GLSEN, that is being promoted by GLSEN and Barnes and Noble. Here are just a few of the activities they’ve concocted to “end bullying” (nudge nudge, wink wink):

Lesson Four (recommended for K-5)

Explain to students that they will hear a number of different scenarios read aloud one at a time, and that for each scenario they hear it will be their job to decide how they think they might act if they were the witness or bystander in the situation.

Scenario #3
Shelly brings her two dads to parent night to show them around her classroom and to meet her friends and teacher. The next day, Rachel turns to Masha and says she doesn’t want to be Shelly’s friend anymore because her family is “weird.” Shelly comes over to color with Rachel and Masha, and Rachel says “Eew, we don’t want any weirdos over here. Go sit somewhere else.” What can Masha do?

Scenario #5
Antonio and Sabine are good friends, and sit together every day on the bus to and from school. Shomi sometimes sits near them, but has stopped recently because a group of students who also ride the bus have started sitting behind Antonio and Sabine and throwing balls of paper and other garbage at them for the whole ride. Shomi also hears the group calling Antonio gay and saying Sabine must really be a boy because otherwise she would have friends who are girls. What can Shomi do?

Lesson Five (recommended for K-5)

Part 1 – Guided Fantasy (10-15 minutes)

Ask students to make themselves as comfortable as possible, and to find a position in which they can relax and close their eyes. You may want to clear space for students to lie down or dim the lights for this portion of the lesson.

By reading directly from the Bully-Free School Guided Fantasy supplement, lead students into a quiet visualization session in which they spend time picturing in detail the way a school without name-calling would look, sound, and feel. Read slowly and pause in between sections of the guided fantasy so that students really have time to make clear pictures in their heads that they will be asked later to flesh out more completely…

“I want you to find a comfortable position that you can stay in the whole time I am reading. When you are comfortable, I want you to close your eyes. Take a deep breath – breathe in, and now breathe out. Let your body begin to relax, and as you breathe deeply in and out, let all the noises around you fade into the background. We are going to use our imaginations to take a journey to a school. This school is a lot like our school, but it is special because in this school there is no name-calling and no bullying at all. I am going to help you walk through this school, but it is up to you to decide what this school looks and sounds like, and how it feels to be there. We’ll talk later about what you see, but for now, let’s start our trip…”

Middle School Lesson

Read the poem below by a theatre troupe that uses it at performances about harassment and homophobia in schools. Think about and discuss the questions that follow.

Ask students to make themselves as comfortable as possible, and to find a position in which they can relax and close their eyes. You may want to clear space for students to lie down or dim the lights for this portion of the lesson.

By reading directly from the Bully-Free School Guided Fantasy supplement, lead students into a quiet visualization session in which they spend time picturing in detail the way a school without name-calling would look, sound, and feel. Read slowly and pause in between sections of the guided fantasy so that students really have time to make clear pictures in their heads that they will be asked later to flesh out more completely.

I AM THE ONE (1ST READING)
I am the one
I am the one who is subject to whispers
I am the one who is always being told to be different.
I am the one who has to pretend, the one who can’t tell my family, the one who walks alone in the hallway. The one who isn’t sure anymore.
I am the one who is afraid I will be the victim of a hate crime.
I am the one you are afraid to be seen with.
I am the one who is quick to point fingers and laugh, whose friends are on both sides of the line, who conjures assumptions and spreads rumors.
I am the one who is surrounded by people who are all the same. Who wants to stick up for people but doesn’t know how, who wants to say something back.
I am the one who just wants to be accepted
I am the one who feels powerless
I am the one who wants to be set free
I am the one who wants my parents to love me for me
Who cares inside but is afraid to speak up.
Who always wanted to have the perfect life, but doesn’t know what that means anymore.
I am the one who is threatened by difference.
I am the one who disagrees with my parents, I am the one who is never safe, who doesn’t know who I can talk to, who avoids the ones that call me names.
I am the one who is outraged at the harassment I see in my school.
I am the one.

I AM THE ONE (2ND READING)
I am the one
I am the one who calls you a fag
I am the one who gets called a fag
I am the one who gets called a fag for the way I dress, who is unsure, is questioning
Who stays home sick, who doesn’t care,
I am the one who wishes it was different
I am the one who is making it different.
I am the one who is invisible only when I lie, is out of the closet, who holds my head high-
I am the one who is vocal about my beliefs, who stands alone but is not lonely.
I am the one who craves acceptance
I am the one who defends gay people and gets ridiculed for it.
I am the one who knows that homosexuality is against God’s will.
I am the one who tries to be someone else in order to be accepted, who hates because I don’t know, who hates because I don’t care
Who hates because my friends do.
Who stands silently and watches, the one who is afraid to tell my friends I might not be straight.
I am the one who doesn’t care what others think, the one willing to risk, the one not afraid to be different.
I am the one who is vulnerable. The one who is openly, happily gay
The one who is incorrectly labeled as gay
I am the one who has no one
I am the one who doesn’t know how, or why, I am the one…alone

High School Lesson Plan

Have students break into groups of 4‐5 and distribute copies of the LGBT Terminology 101 handout to each group, ideally such that every student has a copy. Ask students to spend about five minutes reading and reviewing the terms in their group, and then have each group write down one or two questions they have about the terminology on a piece of paper.

Collect students’ questions, bring students back together as a large group, and read each question out loud (without revealing which group asked which question). Facilitate discussion of the questions, encouraging students as much as possible to answer each other’s questions. Emphasize that it is not wrong to not to know everything about another person’s identity, and that asking respectful questions is often the best (or only) way to find this information out.

LGBT Terminology 101 Handout

Bisexual: A sexual orientation and/or identity of a person who is sexually, erotically and emotionally attracted to some males and some females.

Biological Sex or Sex: This can be considered our “packaging” and is determined by our chromosomes (such as XX or XY), our hormones (e.g., estrogen, progesterone, testosterone) and our internal and external genitalia (e.g., vulva, clitoris, vagina, ovaries, penis, testicles). Typically, we are assigned the sex of male or female at birth.

Coming Out: Declaring one’s identity, specifically, being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, whether to a person in private or a group of people. To be “in the closet” means to hide one’s identity. Many LGBT people are “out” in some situations and “closeted” in others.

Gay: A sexual orientation and/or identity of a person who is sexually, erotically and emotionally attracted to some members of the same sex. Although gay can refer to both gay males and gay females, many gay females prefer the term “lesbian.”

Gender Expression: Refers to an individual’s physical characteristics, behaviors and presentation that are linked, traditionally, to either masculinity or femininity, such as: appearance, dress, mannerisms, speech patterns and social interactions.

Gender Identity: This is how we identify ourselves in terms of our gender. Identities may be: male, female, androgynous, bigender, transgender, genderqueer and others.

Heterosexism: Applies to attitudes, bias and discrimination in favor of heterosexual sexuality and relationships. It includes the presumption that everyone is heterosexual or that male/female attractions and relationships are the norm and therefore superior. It is the belief that everyone is or should be straight.

Heterosexual: A sexual orientation and/or identity of a person who is sexually, erotically and emotionally attracted to some members of another sex (specifically, a male who is attracted to some females or a female who is attracted to some males). Often referred to as “straight.”

Homophobia: An irrational fear of, aversion to or discrimination against homosexuality or lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

Lesbian: A sexual orientation and/or identity of a person who is female‐identified and who is sexually, erotically and emotionally attracted to some other females.

Transgender: An identity of a person whose gender identity is not aligned with their sex assigned at birth and/or whose gender expression is non‐conforming.

Transphobia: An irrational fear and/or hatred of those who are perceived to break or blur societal norms regarding gender identity or gender expression. Usually directed at those who identify as transgender or defy stereotypical gender norms, regardless of their actual gender identity or sexual orientation.

No, Toto, we’re definitely not in Kansas any more.

These activities manipulate emotions while never exposing or critiquing the assumptions embedded within the activities. Some people may hold all of these assumptions to be true, but public school teachers have no right to teach them as if they are, indeed, factual, objective, or true.

All of the activities listed above are laden with embedded, unproven, non-factual assumptions that have no place in public education. For example, the “LGBT Terminology” handout teaches students that “heterosexism” is an attitude in favor of heterosexuality and in favor of the presumption that male/female relationships are the norm and superior. By identifying the traditional and common belief that only heterosexual behavior is moral sexual behavior with the pejorative term “heterosexism,” the handout teaches that it’s bad and wrong to believe that heterosexuality is the moral norm. It should outrage taxpayers that any public school teacher would teach other people’s children that conservative moral beliefs are wrong.

In addition, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations believe that heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality. The public should not tolerate publicly funded government employees teaching other people’s children even implicitly that their religious beliefs are erroneous or problematic.

Homosexuality should not be discussed in public elementary or middle schools at all. Gender Identity Disorder–or what homosexual activists like to refer to with their invented euphemism, “transgender”–should not be discussed in public elementary or middle schools at all.

If homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder are discussed in public high schools, students should study resources written by the best scholars on both sides of the philosophical spectrum.

Schools should be prohibited from using the term “homophobia” in that homosexual activists use it to refer not just to name-calling and physical harassment but also to conservative beliefs on the nature and morality of homosexuality. In addition, high school teachers should be required to use the correct term for those who experience confusion about their gender: Gender Identity Disorder.

Schools are able to teach students not to bully without specifically addressing homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder just as they are able to teach students not to bully without specifically addressing a whole host of other moral and psychological disorders. For example, schools can teach students not to bully without specifically mentioning or affirming Body Integrity Identity Disorder, paraphilias, polyamory, or promiscuity.

No public school teacher has the right to teach either implicitly or explicitly that homosexuality is normative or moral (or equivalent to race). Those are unproven beliefs–not facts. Hold your local public school educators to their commitments to honor all voices and to respect diversity. Conservative voices are entitled to be honored, and conservative beliefs are an integral part of a diverse community.

Educators also say they want parents to advocate for their children. Have the courage to be pro-active advocates for your children. If you have children in public schools, notify your children’s teacher/s immediately that under no circumstances are your children to be exposed to any resources, activities, or teacher commentary–including anti-bullying resources and activities–that address homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder. Then ask them to confirm via email that they will honor your request.

Here’s one of the many truths that GLSEN doesn’t want you to know: You can oppose both name-calling and GLSEN’s propagandistic “No Name-Calling Week.”

---

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

By now many have read about the incident that took place in a suburban Detroit high school. Teacher Jay McDowell expelled a student from his economics class because the student said that due to his Catholic faith, he does not accept homosexuality. This took place during one of the many homosexuality-affirming events that take place in public schools. This one, “Ally Week,” is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, as is the Day of Silence.

Not only did McDowell expel the student from his class, but according to written student accounts to the administration, McDowell shouted at the student; slammed the classroom door; called an administrative office in front of the entire class to say that the expelled student had engaged in “discrimination”; spent class time expressing his personal philosophical, political, and moral beliefs; and showed an “anti-bullying” film, rather than use his period to teach economics.

As a result of his actions, McDowell was disciplined.

So, what does discrimination, harassment, and bullying look like to the teacher of tolerance, Jay McDowell?

According to an Associated Press (AP) report, McDowell is filing a complaint with the district over his discipline, saying “I want to force adults to look at what situation we’ve created…I would really like us to be more aggressive in our policing of harassing and bullying.”

There, McDowell has said what those of us who are familiar with the beliefs and goals of the Left have been trying to warn the public about: Homosexual activists and their ideological allies in public schools believe that expressing conservative moral beliefs about homosexual acts is harassment and bullying.

As a result of their expansive view of harassment and bullying, they presumptuously and self-righteously believe they have the right to try to change the moral beliefs of other people’s children and to censor the expression of them.

Here is what McDowell had to say on a Detroit television program regarding free speech:

I think it was a teachable moment. And it was a teachable moment to show that you can have whatever religious views you want, which is very important, but there are certain things that we don’t say in the classroom. And there a certain things that we still don’t say in the public sphere.

Although this a remarkable thing to hear from anyone, from a government-employed educator who is supposed to foster critical thinking, respect for diversity, and the free exchange of ideas, it is also deeply troubling.

And it’s a view so extreme that even the ACLU disagrees. According to the same AP report, “Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan’s LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Legal Project” says that “‘those statements (of the expelled student)…were protected speech….The only way we’re going to create a better environment in schools is to start talking about this.'”

McDowell’s apparent belief that homosexual acts are moral is neither factual nor proven. His apparent belief that homosexuality is a condition analogous to race is neither factual nor proven. His apparent belief that disapproval of homosexual acts is equivalent to racial bigotry is neither factual nor true. And his belief that conservative beliefs should not be spoken in the “public sphere” is frightening.

Is it all expressions of moral disapproval that have no place in the public sphere or just those with which Jay McDowell disagrees? In Mr. McDowell’s moral universe, do expressions of disapproval of polyamory constitute discrimination, harassment, and bullying? Do expressions of disapproval of Catholic beliefs constitute religious discrimination and bullying of Catholic students? Perhaps Mr. McDowell could enlighten the rest of America as to which moral statements can be spoken in the public sphere.

In educational contexts, the study and free exchange of ideas is essential. Advocacy of personal beliefs on controversial topics by teachers must be explicitly prohibited. And discipline, ridicule, or excoriation of students who express beliefs with which teachers disagree must be punished. If anyone is guilty of harassment, discrimination, and bullying as well as unprofessionalism, it is Jay McDowell. McDowell’s punishment, a one-day suspension without pay, is insufficient.

Mr. McDowell and many other activist ideologues in public schools all around the country, including here in Illinois, should have mandatory training regarding how to demonstrate respect for intellectual diversity; how to foster critical thinking by having students spend equal time studying the best writing from the best scholars on both sides of controversial topics; and how to demonstrate professionalism by concealing personal values, beliefs, and biases.

Moreover, taxpayers should demand that school districts write policy that requires all of the above.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

For Immediate Release: March 15, 2010
Media Contacts: Linda Harvey, 614-442-7998 & Laurie Higgins, 847-948-7889

Tinley Park, IL – A national coalition of organizations committed to preserving parental rights in public education, restoring academic integrity to public education, and removing partisan political protests from the classroom is urging parents to call their children out of school on the Day of Silence if their school is permitting students to refuse to speak in class. This year’s Day of Silence is scheduled to take place in most schools on Friday, April 16th.

The Day of Silence is a political protest sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) that exploits taxpayer-funded schools to normalize homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder by asking students to refuse to speak in class.

The purported goals of the Day of Silence are to draw attention to and stop the bullying of students who self-identify as homosexual or who experience gender confusion. What GLSEN fails to acknowledge is that the means by which they seek to end bullying is by compelling public affirmation of homosexual acts and cross-dressing as normal and moral behaviors.

According to the Day of Silence website, “Hundreds of thousands of students at more than 8,000 schools” participate, including increasing numbers of middle schools.

Although the Day of Silence Walkout coalition supports the goal of ending all bullying, we do not support any effort to end bullying that involves normalizing disordered and dangerous behaviors.

We also oppose any efforts to allow divisive, partisan political action into the classroom.

The Day of Silence is just one of many contexts in which students are exposed to homosexuality-affirming ideas in public schools. And while public schools expose students to resources that affirm homosexuality, they engage in absolute censorship of all resources that espouse dissenting views.

The Day of Silence Walkout is one of the few efforts parents have available to express their unequivocal opposition to both the means and the message of the Day of Silence.

The coalition urges parents to call their children’s schools and ask the administration one question: Are students and/or teachers permitted to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence?

If the answer is “yes”, parents should call their children out of school.

For more information and a list of coalition members, visit www.doswalkout.net.

A national coalition of pro-family organizations is urging parents to call their children out of school on the Day of Silence (DOS), an annual event sponsored by the partisan political action group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). On the DOS, students and sometimes teachers are permitted to remain silent during instructional time to protest the bullying of students who identify as homosexual or transgender.

The coalition that opposes the DOS believes that it’s inappropriate to allow political protests to intrude into instructional time. Grove City College professor, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, on the other hand, is recommending that students join his “Golden Rule Pledge” effort which urges them to remain in school and pass out cards on which the Golden rule is printed. Apparently, he finds greater moral offense in parents removing their children from class on the DOS than he does in school-sanctioned political protest in the service of GLSEN’s goals, which extend far beyond reducing bullying. Unlike Dr. Throckmorton, we believe that the worthy ends of ending bullying do not justify the means of exploiting instructional time.

According to the DOS website, last year “Hundreds of thousands of students” participated in the Day of Silence, yet school administrators persist in telling gullible parents that this political action is not disruptive to the educational process. DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.

Perhaps it’s easier to notice the disruption by imagining what would happen if an anti-war group wanted to remain silent during class to draw attention to the voices of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan; and another group wanted to remain silent during class to draw attention to the silenced voices of women in Muslim countries; and another wanted to remain silent during class to draw attention to the plight of persecuted Christians around the world; and an animal rights group wants to remain silent during class to draw attention to animals killed during medical research; and another group wanted to show solidarity with conservative Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews who are silenced by the hostility of left-leaning educators who dominate discourse in public schools.

Dr. Throckmorton suggests that the “Walkout” is ironic in that it is even more disruptive than silence. I agree that the Walkout is disruptive, but school administrations have turned a deaf ear to reasoned pleas to remove divisive political action from the classroom. Whereas the DOS is intended to politicize the classroom, the “Walkout” is intended to remove children from exposure to yet more pro-homosexual activism and restore political neutrality to the classroom.

Dr. Throckmorton misapplies the “Golden Rule” in his efforts to promote heretical views of the nature and morality of homosexuality. The Golden Rule, which is found in both Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12, properly understood, does not mean that believers should affirm all seemingly intractable human desires. Nor does it mean that Christians should refrain from making public statements regarding the immorality of homosexuality. “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets,” means that Christians should affirm to others God’s Word–the entirety of God’s Word–in a godly way. It is absurd to suggest that in order to live out the Golden Rule faithfully Christians must affirm every desire that another human experiences, including even sinful desires.

Last year on his website, Dr. Throckmorton offered an account of ugly behavior on the parts of purported Christians, thus perpetuating, perhaps unintentionally, the myth that all Christians are hateful. Clearly, people who exhibit the behavior described are not living authentic Christian lives. But living authentic Christian lives and protecting those who are being persecuted do not require intrusive classroom political action.

Dr. Throckmorton also raises the specter of “judgmentalism.” Often homosexualists proclaim “Judge not, that you be not judged” as biblical justification for the position that Christians ought not to state publicly that homosexual behavior is immoral. But this verse means that we are not to engage in unrighteous judgment. We’re not to hypocritically condemn the speck in the eye of others while ignoring the plank in our own. We’re to recognize the universality of sin and offer forgiveness as we have been forgiven. This verse does not prohibit Christians from making distinctions between moral and immoral behaviors.

DOS participants claim they merely want to end bullying. The central problem with this claim is that DOS supporters fail to acknowledge the means by which they seek to curb bullying. Supporters of DOS seek to end bullying by undermining the historical and orthodox Christian belief that homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors are immoral. What Day of Silence supporters rarely if ever admit is that they believe that disapproval of homosexual conduct is bullying, and therefore they are working to undermine that belief and prohibit its expression.

The fallacious claim being leveled at critics of the DOS is that opposition to political action in the classroom constitutes support for bullying. Some speciously claim that those who oppose DOS must not care about the suffering of “GLBTQ” teens. Put another way, this implies that the only way parents, students, and teachers can prove they care about the suffering of “GLBTQ” students is to allow classroom political protest. Those who level this charge are suggesting that there are only two options: either you support political protest during instructional time or you support bullying. This is a classic false dilemma. The truth is that students, parents, and teachers can oppose bullying while concomitantly opposing the politicization of instructional time.

DOS participants claim they seek to end discrimination. The problem is that DOS supporters believe that moral convictions with which they disagree constitute discrimination. If, however, we allow schools to define discrimination so expansively as to prohibit all statements of moral conviction, character development is compromised and speech rights are trampled. And if administrators continue to define discrimination in such a way as to preclude only some statements of moral conviction, they violate pedagogical commitments to intellectual diversity and render the classroom a place of indoctrination.

Dr. Throckmorton believes that “Christian students should be leading the way to make schools safe and build bridges to those who often equate ‘Christian’ with condemnation.” In this statement, Dr. Throckmorton glaringly omits the truth that God condemns homosexuality, and therefore all Christians must condemn volitional homosexual conduct. And to those who view homosexuality as moral, this necessary Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior renders homosexuals “unsafe.” Of course, homosexualists don’t apply this principle consistently. They don’t, for example, say that condemnation of polyamory or adult consensual incest or promiscuity renders those who engage in polyamory, promiscuity, or incest “unsafe.”

Christians are obligated to balance truth with grace and love, but on this issue, the church errs on the side of grace and retreats from truth with all due haste. The body of Christ has become cowardly. American Christians flee from the persecution that inevitably results when we speak the truth about homosexual behavior, and then we rationalize our cultural conformity and self-censorship as Christian compassion. Living an authentically orthodox Christian life is irreconcilable with the goals of GLSEN.

Foolish, superficial thinking has resulted in the commonly held belief that affirming students’ feelings represents the zenith of wisdom and compassion. The truth, however, is that the minds and hearts of fallen humans are rife with thoughts and feelings that ought not to be affirmed, even as we affirm the people who experience them.

Teens who experience same-sex attraction no more choose their feelings than any of us choose ours. But as moral beings living for a time in a fallen world suffused with brokenness of all kinds, we are all charged with the same moral task: We all must determine which of our myriad messy feelings are morally legitimate to act upon. Adults are supposed to help children navigate those murky waters.

Many Christians desire to build bridges between the Christian and homosexual communities. The problem is that they are pursuing this noble effort by concealing from their “GLBTQ” friends the true nature of orthodox theological positions on homosexuality.

The goals of building bridges, cultivating community, and fostering relationships between the orthodox Christian community and the GLBTQ community, and spreading the Good News of Christ’s work of redemption within that community are not only noble but critical goals. And certainly different people are called to approach these goals in different ways. But the methods or strategies employed must never sacrifice, obscure, or compromise truth.

If we strain to find ways to avoid speaking the truth that God proscribes homosexual practices, we do a disservice both to those experiencing same-sex attractions and to our relationship with Christ. Our equivocations, evasions, or ambiguity will either appear as untruthful and manipulative, or they will deceive people into thinking we believe something we do not. We should instead do as we are commanded and speak the truth in love.

Dr. Throckmorton might be well-served by remembering the words of Martin Luther:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

Those who self-identify as homosexual are no different from those of us who struggle with other sinful inclinations. All of us come to the cross as sinners, and none will be fully sanctified until Christ’s return, but retreat from or obfuscation of what the Bible teaches about, for example, selfishness, greed, envy, pride, promiscuity, fornication, gossip, gluttony, or any other of the myriad manifestations of sin is simply not scriptural–and therefore not good. We don’t want teens bullied for these or any other behaviors, and yet we likely wouldn’t support days of classroom silence during which teachers and students show support for those who engage in these sinful behaviors.

I can already hear the cries of indignation over my analogy. Supporters of the DOS will take umbrage with it because they view these other behaviors as immoral and not constitutive of identity.

But you see, that is the debate. Orthodox Christians view homosexuality as immoral and not constitutive of identity, and therefore we don’t want public education to be used as a conduit for the spread of beliefs we see as false and destructive.

If parents leave their children in school on the Day of Silence as Dr. Throckmorton recommends, they become complicit in the exploitation of the classroom for partisan political purposes. Dr. Throckmorton’s misguided effort does nothing to restore political neutrality to public education. In fact, his effort will help to further institutionalize GLSEN efforts to use public education to undermine orthodox Christian beliefs on the complex and emotionally charged issue of homosexuality.

A broad coalition of individuals and organizations is urging parents to oppose the Day of Silence (DOS), a political action sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), because it politicizes the classroom for ideological purposes. 

The explicit purpose of DOS is to encourage sympathy and support for students involved in homosexual behavior and cross-dressing whose voices have been allegedly silenced by the disapproval of society. The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. Parents should no longer passively countenance the political usurpation of public school classrooms through student silence.

Parents should call their children’s middle schools and high schools to ask whether the administration and/or teachers will be permitting students to remain silent during class on the Day of Silence. If students will be permitted to remain silent, parents can express their opposition most effectively by calling their children out of school on the Day of Silence and sending letters of explanation to their administrators, their children’s teachers, and all school board members. One reason this is effective is that most school districts lose money for each student absence. 

School administrators err when they allow the classroom to be disrupted and politicized by granting students permission to remain silent throughout an entire day. The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around the silence of some or many, or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking. Furthermore, DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom. 

Some administrators assert that DOS merely seeks to promote “acceptance.” They fail to clarify, however, what precisely they want students to accept. While it is legitimate to teach students that there exist diverse opinions on this issue, it is not legitimate to imply that one of those opinions is preferable to another. While it is appropriate to teach acceptance of people, meaning that we should treat all with civility, it is not appropriate to suggest that students need to accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral. These important distinctions are rarely, if ever, made in public school discussions of “acceptance.”

One oft-repeated mantra is that the goal of DOS is to keep LGBTQ students safe. The problematic rhetoric of “safety,” however, substitutes speciously for the more accurate term of “comfort.” To suggest that in order for those who self-identify as homosexual or “transgender” to be “safe,” no one may disapprove of homosexual conduct is both absurd and dangerous. If this definition of “safety” were to be applied consistently, virtually all statements of disapproval would be prohibited.

Day of Silence participants claim they seek to end discrimination. There is, however, a problem with the way “discrimination” is defined in public discourse today. Groups like GLSEN believe that statements of moral conviction with which they disagree constitute prejudice or discrimination. While relentlessly promoting this view, administrators are never asked to provide evidence for the dubious presuppositions on which claims of discrimination are based. They are never asked to provide evidence for the arguable claim that homosexuality is equivalent to race; or that disapproval of homosexual conduct is equivalent to racism; or that homosexual impulses are biologically determined; or that the presence of biological influences in shaping desire renders a behavior automatically moral. The time is long past that parents demand justification for those claims.

If we allow schools to define discrimination so expansively as to prohibit all statements of moral conviction, character development is compromised and speech rights are trampled. And if administrators continue to define discrimination in such a way as to preclude only some statements of moral conviction, they violate their pedagogical commitment to intellectual diversity and render the classroom a place of indoctrination. 

Finally, DOS supporters contend that one of their purposes is to end harassment. What they fail to acknowledge is that the worthy end of eliminating harassment does not justify the means of exploiting instructional time. There are myriad other ways to work toward that end. DOS participants have a First Amendment right to wear t-shirts, or put up posters, or host after-school speakers, or set up tables from which to distribute informative materials. They ought not to be allowed to manipulate instructional time in the service of their socio-political goals.

Here are responses to some common concerns about calling children out of school on DOS:

• Some parents believe that there is value in having students who hold traditional views on sexual orientation in class on the DOS. This belief is flawed for two reasons. First, the adolescent culture is liberal, and adolescents desire to fit in. The vast majority of conservative kids do not feel comfortable vocally opposing their culture and will not do so. As those who are more public in opposing the normalization of homosexuality can attest, very few adults have the courage to oppose the dominant culture; we cannot expect teens to do what adults don’t do. 

  Moreover, the goal of calling students out of school on DOS is not to communicate an alternative message to that of DOS. The goal is to remove GLSEN-sponsored political action from taxpayer-funded classes.

• Some parents express concern over the possibility of teachers exacting revenge through grading. First, it would be highly unethical for a teacher to treat a student punitively because of the teacher’s subjective assessment of the parents’ reason for calling a student out. If a teacher were to attempt to punish a student in such a way, parents should address the problem with the administration. Second, some students are willing to accept this possibility, viewing the cause as worthy of the sacrifice. Finally, those parents and teens who are not willing to risk even the remote possibility of teacher retribution can call their child out of school and not send a letter expressing their objections to DOS. 
• Some have argued that calling students out of class represents an attempt to deny free speech. Calling students out of class does not represent an attempt to deny free speech to students; rather, calling students out of class represents opposition to the exploitation of instructional time for socio-political action. Students are free to express their views in multiple ways mentioned above.
• Some claim that those who oppose DOS must not care about the suffering of LGBTQ teens. It is utterly specious to suggest that parents, teachers, and administrators who oppose political action in the classroom support harassment. Put another way, this claim implies that the only way parents, administrators, and teachers can prove they oppose harassment of homosexual or transgendered teens is to allow the politicization of the classroom. It also represents a classic ends justifies the means argument: If the ends, in this case, combating harassment of homosexual teens, are good, then any and all means are justified. 

  There are countless worthwhile goals that should not be promoted during class. Some might consider ending the tragedy of teen drunk-driving deaths, or the war in Iraq, or abortion to be worthwhile goals, and yet it would be equally inappropriate to use the classroom to promote them. The truth is that parents, teachers, and administrators can oppose harassment while concomitantly opposing the politicization of instructional time.

Schools have the right to prohibit student silence in the classroom if they deem it “disruptive.” It is our hope and belief that if schools have one group of students silent and another group called out, they will eventually decide that classroom silence is “disruptive.”