For the second time in two weeks, we have a story out of California regarding what sounds an awful lot like the promotion of homosexuality at an elementary school. This time, it’s in Hayward, on the opposite side of San Francisco Bay. According to LifeSite News:
Parents of students attending an elementary school in Hayward, California, are in a frenzy after learning the school allegedly made no effort to inform them their children were to participate in today’s homosexual “Coming Out Day” school event, reports the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), a legal firm specializing in the defense of religious freedoms and parental rights.
Parents of children at Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science were shocked to see a poster announcing the homosexual event, as they had not received any previous notification. In fact, according PJI, the school specifically decided not to inform parents ahead of time.
“Coming Out Day” is far from the first time children as young as five at Faith Ringgold have been indoctrinated with the pro-homosexual agenda. The school is in the midst of celebrating “Ally Week” as part of “Gay and Lesbian History Month.”
When one mother asked her daughter earlier this week what she was learning in kindergarten at the school, the 5-year-old replied, “We’re learning to be allies.” The mother also learned that her daughter’s kindergarten classroom is regularly used during lunchtime for meetings of a Gay Straight Alliance club.
Faith Ringgold seems to have set the promotion of the homosexual agenda as a priority on its 2008 calendar, as several other pro-homosexual events are slated in the coming weeks.
For instance, several parents have noticed numerous posters around the school promoting talks on the family scheduled for later this week; all of the posters, however, depict only homosexual “families.” As well, On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as “Jane and the Beanstalk.”
Say hello to the future of education in California, and perhaps across America.
UPDATE: If you check the comments, you’ll see a raging debate that is basically about the reliability of this report. I got it from LifeSite News, which though its parent organization has a clear ideological agenda, is usually pretty reliable. What I didn’t know is that they apparently got it from World Net Daily, which I consider far less reliable. However, WND didn’t just make it up; they got their information from the source quoted in the LifeSite story, the Pacific Justice Institute. The full press release from PJI reads this:
Parents at a K-8 charter school in Hayward were shocked to learn this week the extent to which their school is promoting gay and lesbian ideals to their daughter in kindergarten.
The parents were shocked to see a poster announcing that “Coming Out Day” will be celebrated at the school this coming Thursday, October 23. The school, Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, chose not to tell parents ahead of time, but it is in the midst of celebrating “Ally Week,” a pro-homosexual push typically aimed at high school students. When one mother asked her daughter earlier this week what she was learning in kindergarten at the school, the 5-year-old replied, “We’re learning to be allies.” The mother also learned that her daughter’s kindergarten classroom is regularly used during lunchtime for meetings of a Gay Straight Alliance club.
Later this week, the school is slated to talk about families. The parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families. More controversial discussions can be expected through next week, as the elementary school continues to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as “Jane and the Beanstalk.”
These parents are being advised by attorneys from Pacific Justice Institute. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible? Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools.”
Any other parents whose elementary-age children have been subjected to pro-homosexual propaganda should contact Pacific Justice Institute for counsel and possible representation.
Now, I can only conclude from this that parents at the Hayward school contacted PJI because they were concerned about what was going on at their children’s school. The school, however, denies there’s a problem, according to KGO-TV in San Francisco (hat tip: Alan):
“[Teacher Tara Miller] was going to be having a discussion with the GSA, the Gay-Straight Alliance which are 6th, 7th, 8th graders; age appropriate for middle schoolers, nothing for the younger kids,” Levy said.
National Coming Out Day is celebrated on Oct. 11 in honor of gay and lesbian rights.
One parent of a former student told ABC7 that last year, Miller showed a film depicting gay families to her kindergarteners, without first notifying parents. Levy, who is new to the school, could not confirm the parent’s story.
Miller’s Thursday’s discussion with the GSA did take place as scheduled.
That’s as far as it goes; as Kate points out in the comments, there’s more in the LifeSite story than just this, and I think those items need to be addressed or disproven. I suspect there’s going to be more information coming out (pardon the pun) before very long about this, and when I hear it, you will, too.


October 24, 2008 at 7:04 am
If I were a parent at that school I would approach the faculty in this way: “What if my child invited your child to her birthday party and you come to find out later that the birth date was months ago but we ‘celebrated’ with cake and ice cream and a Bible study. You would be furious. This is no different.”
October 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Do we need any more reason to keep our kids away from the State Idol Factories otherwise knows as Public schools?
October 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Give your kids to Molech to train and you may just get kids of Molech back.
Also means us Reformed folk need to start opening some Reformed schools.
October 24, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Hard to find many credible facts about this, since most everyone only cites WorldNetDaily or LifeSite “News”. Based on that alone I would almost doubt that it ever happened or that Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science even exists.
However, I was able to find (via Google, folks should try it sometime) through a real, credible news source (ie. the local ABC affiliate) that the story above isn’t quite what happened, apparently. What happened was this: “Adila Voelker read about it [the coming out day event] in a newsletter sent home by her daughter’s kindergarten teacher; listed under “dates to remember,” …. But the whole issue is a misunderstanding, according to school Principal Dana Levy. “[Teacher Tara Miller] was going to be having a discussion with the GSA, the Gay-Straight Alliance which are 6th, 7th, 8th graders; age appropriate for middle schoolers, nothing for the younger kids” Levy said.” [emphasis mine]
So, before people get their knickers in a twist over this, I might suggest figuring out what actually happened. It sounds like the account presented here is not the whole story.
Having a discussion with students who are already members of the GSA is hardly inappropriate. Kids choose to be in the club, and I have no doubt that their parents know about it. But, if their parents do not know, I’d say that’s the parents’ own fault, not the school’s fault. Also, such clubs cannot generally be banned any more than Bible Clubs can be banned from schools.
What we can discern from the information presented is that this statement, quoted by this blog’s host: “In fact, according PJI, the school specifically decided not to inform parents ahead of time” is clearly untrue, since the “Coming Out Day” item was listed in a note handed out before October 23rd. How do I know this? Because some angry parents kept their kids home yesterday (Thursday, the 23rd.) One might imagine that the lawyers at the PJI would have, at some time during their legal training, learned to read a calendar.
So, in summary, just more bigoted paranoia about “the gays coming for your kids.”
October 24, 2008 at 2:53 pm
What about posters only showing gay families, and the “learning to be allies” thing? I rather think that dismissing Lifesite news just because they happen to have a conservative Christian bias is bigoted paranoia, as well.
October 24, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I don’t dismiss them because they’re conservative. I would dismiss them because they’re not a real news source, it is a blog run by a Canadian Pro-Life lobbying group.
I won’t apologize for being skeptical about what I read, nor for putting more credence in proven journalists with actual editors. I don’t, for example, take the National Enquirer seriously either.
However, for you to assume that I dismiss them just because they’re conservative, and not because they’re hacks, is also bigoted paranoia. LOL
October 24, 2008 at 3:10 pm
BTW, Kate, if this had been published by a liberal website with equally dubious “credentials” I would also dismiss it. Consistency. Folks should try it sometime.
October 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I rather doubt that.
October 24, 2008 at 3:21 pm
That’s fine. But since you have no evidence to support your position that I’m not consistent, it is nothing but an unfounded opinion. That’s fine. I obviously have nothing at all against a healthy skepticism. However, you can hardly criticize me for my skepticism when you’re clearly skeptical yourself. Again, consistency isn’t a bad thing. You might want to try it sometime.
Anyway, my opinions of news sources aren’t actually the actual topic here. I know that often people like to distract from the topic at hand, perhaps finding attacks on other commenters more fun, but I do try to stay on topic as much as possible.
October 24, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I pressed send too soon. I used to be a member of the NDP (a left wing party up here in the frozen north), and sometimes I was very suprised at how the so called reputable media reported on our events I would often wonder if we had been at the same event, since there were so many inaccuracies in the reports. Main stream “reputable” media is just as biased as websites like Lifesite news; the difference is that they pretend to be neutral, and don’t declare their biases up front.
Your assumption that I am not consistent because I am a conservative Christian is also bigoted paranoia, no matter how many smilies you place after it. I would suggest to you that you be a bit more careful where you sling mud – it is liable to stick to you.
October 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“Your assumption that I am not consistent because I am a conservative Christian is also bigoted paranoia, no matter how many smilies you place after it. ”
No where did I say that, nor did I imply it. But I am beginning to sense some paranoia, nonetheless, since you keep bringing it up. I will clarify again, I said that you are not consistent because you yourself are skeptical of what I say, while criticizing me of being skeptical of phony news sources. That isn’t mud slinging, it’s simply pointing out an obvious inconsistency. Why is it bad for me to be skeptical of websites with no journalistic reputation while it is OK for you to be skeptical of me (a person with no journalistic reputation.)?
Your need to couch everything as conservative Christian vs. me is very odd, since you don’t know anything about me. I am actually a Christian myself, and thoroughly theologically conservative. I would suggest to you that you be a bit more careful where you sling mud — it is liable to stick to you.
Now would you actually like to discuss the topic, rather than just criticize me?
October 24, 2008 at 3:46 pm
The unintended irony of that statement is astounding. You did imply it, actually, but never mind that. The topic does seem to have morphed a bit – I was attempting to respond to your dismissal of the post as unfounded bigotry, by pointing out that so called reputable news sources also makes mistakes. I never did say that I believe everything I read on lifesite news – but immediately dismissing it because of the origin of the reporting, and putting it on the same level as the National Enquirer, is exactly the same kind of bigotry that you accused this blog of.
October 24, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I would also say, that I think that claiming to be both a theological conservative and defending the gay lifestyle is terrifically inconsistent. Obviously, you will disagree.
October 24, 2008 at 3:55 pm
*sigh* I’ll just keep repeating myself. It would be bigotry if I did so because of their particular bias. But since I do so not because of their bias, but because they’re not real journalists, then it isn’t bigotry. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with believing journalists should do journalism.
So let me get this straight. You say:
1) Main stream “reputable” media is just as biased as websites like Lifesite news; the difference is that they pretend to be neutral, and don’t declare their biases up front, and
2) I never did say that I believe everything I read on lifesite news
So we agree, perhaps for different reasons, but we agree that it’s appropriate to be skeptical of a blog pretending to be a real news website. So these last several comments have been a disagreement about nothing, because we actually already agree. Do you regularly simply disagree with people in order to have something to disagree about?
Wow, that was um … fun … I guess. LOL
Care to discuss the topic now? Or shall we continue on with this continued meaningless distraction over something that isn’t even a disagreement, and your continued criticism of me for no reason?
I can only assume that your failure to address the topic (after many opportunities now) means you don’t have anything more to say about, and/or do not have the evidence to refute the information I provided. If that is the case, please let me know. If you’re only interested in arguing about something on which we already agree, I’m not interested.
October 24, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“I would also say, that I think that claiming to be both a theological conservative and defending the gay lifestyle is terrifically inconsistent”
Again, would you mind discussing the topic, rather than discussing me? I do have a blog myself, linked from each of my comments. If you would like to wander over there and attack me at my own blog, rather than doing it here for the benefit of an audience, you’re more than welcome to do so. I don’t mind it here, I’m certainly thick skinned enough to take it, but I don’t see the point in taking up someone else’s comment space with a bunch of comments unrelated to the post.
Then we could actually discuss the topic. Wouldn’t that be a pleasant change of pace? LOL
October 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Why do I feel like I am on a kindergarten playground? I am not attacking you. I am pointing out the inconsistencies in your comments, which you haven’t yet addressed.
October 24, 2008 at 4:51 pm
LOL. You pointed out that I’m skeptical of Lifesite “News”, which apparently you are too. You then jumped all over me for my skepticism. That would be your inconsistency, not mine.
Here’s the main point of my first comment, if you’d care to get back on topic: This horrible terrible awful thing (ie. the topic of the post) apparently didn’t happen, at least not at all the way that it was portrayed. If you have solid evidence that the report I quoted was wrong, I’d like to see it.
October 24, 2008 at 5:09 pm
In my experience, folk who harp on getting back on topic do so because they don’t wish to be called on their behaviour. Explain to me please why it is ok for you to accuse Lifesite news and Pastor David of bigotry, but it is not ok for me to point your prejudice against Lifesite news out to you.
October 24, 2008 at 5:27 pm
LOL. Sorry, I do have a habit of wanting to stay on topic. So sue me. LOL
Yes, I am absolutely skeptical of a blog (in spite of its name, LifeSite news is not a news organization, it’s a blog) that simply republishes with only minor alterations a press release from a legal organization and claims that’s “news.” Guilty as charged. Now if on my blog, I simply published a press release from the ACLU and called it news, I’d wager you’d think that was just as shoddy, and certainly not journalism of any type. And you’re be right. Which is why I wouldn’t do it. That’s consistency. Now we know, according to the PJI’s own press release that at least one of the claims in the story is demonstrably false, as I’ve pointed out. That, and the fact that unlike a real news organization, they didn’t even bother to interview anyone involved are two reasons I question LifeSite’s journalistic integrity.
No where until this comment thread did I even mention Pastor David until now. So no, yet again you are wrong (how many times is this now? I’m losing track.) I didn’t accuse him of bigoted paranoia. I accused LifeSite news of bigoted paranoia. I did so not because of their bias (which both they on their website and you freely admit) but because of the tone of the story (ie. use of the term “indoctrination”, “Parents in a frenzy” Really? How do we know that?) and the inaccuracies in the story, which I’ve already pointed out.
So let me reiterate. I criticized LifeSite based on the evidence that their “story” was inaccurate, not because of their bias.
Make whatever assumptions you wish about my wish to stay on topic. I’ve already shown your assumptions to be consistently wrong several times. However I simply feel it’s impolite to walk up to someone else’s front porch and have an argument with a third party that has nothing to do with the owner of the home. Perhaps you disagree. But again, I think it’s reasonable to stay on topic because if Pastor David wished to discuss the relative merits of the so-called journalistic integrity of theLifeSite “News” blog, he would have written a post about that, and not about this event.
BTW, you’ll notice in the update to this post that Pastor David has seen that the story was itself cribbed from WND, which he admist is unreliable. Will you criticize him for that as well? You know, just to be consistent.
October 24, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, Molech, and Molech.
October 24, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Criticism of a blog post is generally considered to be criticism of the poster. My original points still stand. News is in the eye of the beholder. If you were running an ACLU friendly news portal, and published a news release, and called it news, that wouldn’t be shoddy reporting. That’s why it is called a news release.
By the way, Pastor David isn’t shy to say what he thinks. He has obviously seen this discussion, and hasn’t seen fit to intervene.
October 25, 2008 at 11:55 am
“That’s why it is called a news release.”
LOL.
So as long as anyone makes anything up and calls it a “press release” that’s OK.
No problem. I just have a higher standard, I guess. Thanks for the discussion.
October 26, 2008 at 7:07 am
No, that isn’t what I said, but I am tired of correcting you. Go ahead and have the last word if you must.
October 29, 2008 at 9:16 am
Alan writes: Hard to find many credible facts about this, since most everyone only cites WorldNetDaily or LifeSite “News”.
Although WorldNetDaily can be sensationalistic and LifeSite news is more of a family information site, it’s important not to discredit the input these sites have in documentating today’s events and culture.
There is a bias in much of the media that is harder to recognize. And that bias is bias by omission. Just because ABC or the New York Times didn’t report it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Also, WND and LifeSite often quote and reference mainstream media in their stories…and there is nothing wrong with that.
October 29, 2008 at 9:18 am
[...] Gay marriage: California parents beware Massachusetts second graders Gay Marriage Certain To Impact California Education Pro-Marriage, Not Anti-Gay Ellen Equates Support for Prop 8 as ‘Hate’ California’s Slithering ‘No’ Campaign What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts Marriage Prop Opponents Talk the Talk, Don’t Walk the Walk, on Equality and Tolerance School Holds Surprise “Gay” Day for Kindergartners California Crusader It’s “Gay” Day at School Today The Asymmetric Case for CA Prop 8 – Protecting Traditional Marriage Coming Out for Kids [...]
October 29, 2008 at 9:19 am
[...] Day for Kindergartners The Asymmetric Case for CA Prop 8 – Protecting Traditional Marriage Coming Out for Kids Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Poll: Majority of Americans slam media for bias, [...]
October 29, 2008 at 9:52 am
“Although WorldNetDaily can be sensationalistic and LifeSite news is more of a family information site, it’s important not to discredit the input these sites have in documentating today’s events and culture.”
We can argue about bias Alexander, or we can actually argue the facts. Arguing that the mainstream media is biased and therefore bias is OK from places that pretend to be “news” sites, like WND and LifeSite blogs doesn’t make much sense to me. Again, I don’t care about bias, I care about accuracy. I would be just as dismissive of a left wing site that chose to simply copy and paste a press release from the ACLU, not because of bias, but because of accuracy.
I’m not arguing that because ABC didn’t report it, it didn’t happen. Because, in fact, if you’ll re-read the post, you’ll see that ABC did report it! LOL They actually interviewed people. That is, they, as real journalists, actually did their jobs, rather than simply reposting a press release as if it was real news.
So, we can argue about bias, or we can argue the facts. The fact is, that the WND and LifeSite “reporting” stated that parents were “blindsided” by this. They weren’t, They clearly had enough forewarning to make the decision to keep their kids home from school that day. The “reports” stated that the presentation was for kindergardeners. It wasn’t. It was for the schools middle-school level Gay-Straight Alliance, a voluntary club in the school. So in the space of just a few paragraphs they weren’t able to keep the simple facts of the case straight.
So, biased or not, I think we can discern the quality of this “reporting” (and by reporting I mean, copy-and-pasting a press release) by the facts they neglected to mention.