I’ve written earlier about Viki Knox, the NJ teacher who faces possible discharge. She had responded to her school’s celebrating Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Month on her Facebook page:
• Why parade your unnatural behaviors before the rest of us…I DO NOT HAVE TO TOLERATE ANYTHING OTHERS WISH TO DO. I DO HAVE TO LOVE AND SPEAK AND DO WHAT’S RIGHT.
These are no doubt politically incorrect and offensive words to many, but are they any more offensive than the words of the Media? In an editorial entitled “Bigoted Teacher Has To Go,” The Sunday Star Ledger (TSSL) accused that Knox “spouted hate speech.” Would it have been hate speech had she instead spoke against pedophiles and incesters? Of course not! Why then does her speech qualify as hate speech?
It’s also important to distinguish her intolerance of “unnatural behaviors” from intolerance of the youth who might struggle with SSA. There’s a world of difference between the two. Knox criticized behaviors, not the person of the youth. It’s the same difference between criticizing cheating and telling the youth, “You’re no good!”
What’s the matter with some strait-shooting? TSSL has no problem demeaning Knox as a “bigot,” but it will not tolerate open discussion about the viability of certain behaviors, especially in regards to the school setting. The school is certainly celebrating “unnatural behavior,” whether sexuality might be ascribed to evolution or to God. Something or Someone designed us for procreation with the opposite sex. This might be a good topic of discussion – “Should the school promote what is unnatural?” However, such discussion is forbidden. By virtue of what? Intimidation!
Here’s another good question – “Are these behaviors self-enhancing or self-destructive?” Shouldn’t the school system be concerned about this question and the ultimate welfare of their children? They have become so ready to allow or even encourage students to adopt a sexual identity, while many studies have shown that sexuality is very fluid, especially during the teenage years. If this is the case and if schools are to get into the sex promotion business, shouldn’t they guide students into more salutary lifestyles, and not those that bump 20 years off the average lifespan? However, the agents of intimidation are unwilling to field such relevant questions.
Ironically, TSSL has labeled Knox as “bigoted,” because she has refused to buckle under the present orthodoxy. TSSL concludes that “we don’t see how Knox ever could be an effective, trusted teacher again.” But how about a school system that wants to promote Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Month against the prevailing sentiments of many parents and students? Isn’t it equally “bigoted” towards the more traditional beliefs? Could such a school ever “be an effective, trusted [school] again?”
What’s good for the goose is good for the school and the agents of intimidation also. If Knox can no longer be trusted, why should such a school or a newspaper that attempts to silence and eliminate those who disagree be trusted? Do you smell hypocrisy there?
No comments:
Post a Comment