Good news from France
J. J. Levin
The entire story is at
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-religion-france-headscarves.html
Whether or not you consider this good news, there is some
definitely good news too. Here is an excerpt from the
NY Time story:
The ban would also make clear pupils must follow the full official curriculum
and cannot object to or skip classes for religious reasons, he said.
Teachers have complained in recent years of problems with Muslim pupils who
interrupt history classes to deny the Nazis slaughtered Jews; boycott classes on
human reproduction, saying they are immodest; or refuse to attend physical
education.
They have also reported that Muslim pupils sometimes repeat anti-Semitic themes
they see on Arabic satellite television. Jewish families are increasingly
switching their children from state schools to private Jewish schools to avoid
harrassment.
Jay
cindys
"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:EH7Wb.4509$rv1.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> The French have banned religious apparel in public schools.
> The entire story is at
>
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-religion-france-headscarves.html
I couldn't read the article because I didn't want to become a "member."
>
> Whether or not you consider this good news, there is some
> definitely good news too. Here is an excerpt from the
> NY Time story:
>
> The ban would also make clear pupils must follow the full official
curriculum
> and cannot object to or skip classes for religious reasons, he said.
IOW, Jewish children would be expected to go to school on Yom Kippur. How is
this good news?
>
> Teachers have complained in recent years of problems with Muslim pupils
who
> interrupt history classes to deny the Nazis slaughtered Jews; boycott
classes on
> human reproduction, saying they are immodest; or refuse to attend physical
> education.
And this paragraph mixes apples with oranges. What is the connection between
Holocaust denial and boycotting classes on human reproduction or refusing to
attend physical education. If my children attended public school, I would
not permit them to attend secular sex education classes (if that is what the
article means when it says "classes on human reproduction"), and physical
education classes can be a problem if they are co-ed or if the girls are
expected to dress immodestly for them.
>
> They have also reported that Muslim pupils sometimes repeat anti-Semitic
themes
> they see on Arabic satellite television. Jewish families are increasingly
> switching their children from state schools to private Jewish schools to
avoid
> harrassment.
It is bad news that the Muslims are repeating anti-Semitic themes, but it is
wonderful news that Jewish children are being switched to Jewish schools.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
J. J. Levin
> "J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:EH7Wb.4509$rv1.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
>>The French have banned religious apparel in public schools.
>>The entire story is at
>>
>>
>>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-religion-france-headscarves.html
>
> I couldn't read the article because I didn't want to become a "member."
>
>>Whether or not you consider this good news, there is some
>>definitely good news too. Here is an excerpt from the
>>NY Time story:
>>
>>The ban would also make clear pupils must follow the full official
>
> curriculum
>
>>and cannot object to or skip classes for religious reasons, he said.
>
>
> IOW, Jewish children would be expected to go to school on Yom Kippur. How is
> this good news?
>
>
>>Teachers have complained in recent years of problems with Muslim pupils
>
> who
>
>>interrupt history classes to deny the Nazis slaughtered Jews; boycott
>
> classes on
>
>>human reproduction, saying they are immodest; or refuse to attend physical
>>education.
>
And me, in my naivete, I thought that forbidding holocaust denial is
good news...
Jay
Tim Meushaw
> cindys wrote:
>> "J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:EH7Wb.4509$rv1.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>
>>>The French have banned religious apparel in public schools.
>>>The entire story is at
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-religion-france-headscarves.html
>>
>> I couldn't read the article because I didn't want to become a "member."
>>
>>>Whether or not you consider this good news, there is some
>>>definitely good news too. Here is an excerpt from the
>>>NY Time story:
>>>
>>>The ban would also make clear pupils must follow the full official curriculum
>>>and cannot object to or skip classes for religious reasons, he said.
>>
>> IOW, Jewish children would be expected to go to school on Yom Kippur. How is
>> this good news?
>>
>>>Teachers have complained in recent years of problems with Muslim pupils who
>>>interrupt history classes to deny the Nazis slaughtered Jews; boycott classes on
>>>human reproduction, saying they are immodest; or refuse to attend physical
>>>education.
>>
> And me, in my naivete, I thought that forbidding holocaust denial is
> good news...
Doctor to patient: "I've got good news and bad news. The good news is
we'll finally be able to treat that rash you've had on your index
finger. The bad news is we're going to amputate your entire arm to cure
it."
Sure, it's good to forbid holocaust denial. It's a shame everything
else got swept up in the fervor, too.
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
cindys
And me, in my naivete, I thought that pretending to misunderstand someone
else's post was intellectually dishonest.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
J. J. Levin
If by "everything else" you mean physical education and sex education,
I obviously disagree.
My Judaism does not forbid moderate physical exercise or modern sex education.
Jay
cindys
Except the issue is not about what *your* Judaism permits or forbids but
rather about the institution of a system which attempts to coerce
individuals into participating in activities which compromise *their* (nor
*your*) Judaic/Islamic religious values and which *they* (not *you*)
consider to be immoral and forbidden. If someone were trying to coerce
*your* children into engaging in activities which *you* considered to be
immoral, I can guarantee you would be kicking and screaming.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
J. J. Levin
You object to physical education oe sex education in school?
Jay
Henry Goodman
"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ancWb.6343$rv1.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
I object to a law which forbids Jewish boys to wear yarmulkas
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
> Jay
J. J. Levin
>
>
>
> "J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:ancWb.6343$rv1.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
>>cindys wrote:
>>
>>>"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:nwaWb.4772$rv1.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tim Meushaw wrote:
>>>>I obviously disagree.
>>>>
>>>>My Judaism does not forbid moderate physical exercise or modern sex
>>>
>>>education.
>>>------------
>>>Except the issue is not about what *your* Judaism permits or forbids but
>>>rather about the institution of a system which attempts to coerce
>>>individuals into participating in activities which compromise *their* (nor
>>>*your*) Judaic/Islamic religious values and which *they* (not *you*)
>>>consider to be immoral and forbidden. If someone were trying to coerce
>>>*your* children into engaging in activities which *you* considered to be
>>>immoral, I can guarantee you would be kicking and screaming.
>>>Best regards,
>>>---Cindy S.
>>>
>>
>>
>>You object to physical education oe sex education in school?
>>
>
>
> I object to a law which forbids Jewish boys to wear yarmulkas
>
>
I'm not thrilled with it either, but I posted this thread
this morning to emphasize the prohibition of holocaust denial.
Few people seem to relate to that. But there are complaints about
phys ed and sex education. Are these two items so anathema
to religious Jews ?
Jay
Henry Goodman
"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:J9dWb.6829$rv1.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Prohibition of holocaust denial seems an unnecessary denial of the right of free
speech to this Englishman. I might want to punch somebody on the nose who denied
the holocaust but I don't think he should be arrested.
France has descended a long way since Voltaire said "I abhor his views but I
will defend to the death his right to say it" (something like that)
cindys
This is not about *me.* But since you asked...I think physical education is
a good thing, provided that it is not coed and that the children are not
forced to wear immodest clothing. Yes, I would object to sex education as
taught in a secular school. My sons will learn what they need to know from
me and my husband and/or in yeshiva from their rabbis, which will be in
keeping with our religious philosophy. Aside from the fact that I most
certainly do not think they need to learn how to put a condom on a banana,
the entire philosophy of male/female relationships, beginning with the
secular institution of "casual dating" runs completely contrary to the
traditional Jewish view (that the sole purpose for dating is to determine
whether or not two people will be compatible as husband and wife). In short,
my objection to secular sex education begins long before they even get to
the subject of STDs and birth control. My objection begins with the fact
that the secular sex education teacher assumes that teenage boys and girls
will be going on dates at all.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Fred Rosenblatt
My first reaction was to the phrase "skip classes for religious
reasons". My afternoon Hebrew school at the closest synagogue was 25
miles away over winding
mountain roads. My parents fought long and hard to pull me out of
school early
on Monday and Thursday to attend.
Hebrew school is a good thing. Holocaust denial is a bad thing.
Unfortunately
we no longer allow ourselves to call bad things bad, so we must
content
ourselves with having no things at all.
Nicolas Riesz
> > And this paragraph mixes apples with oranges. What is the connection
> > between
> > Holocaust denial and boycotting classes on human reproduction or refusing > > to
> > attend physical education. If my children attended public school, I would
> > not permit them to attend secular sex education classes (if that is what
> > the
> > article means when it says "classes on human reproduction")
It regards biology classes. It's normal that children attend biology
classes. And it's normal that reproduction is a part of biology
classes.
Note that parents can not forbid their children (using religious,
philosophical or other political pretexts) to attend a part of their
classes, as all children have a right to education.
> and physical
> > education classes can be a problem if they are co-ed or if the girls are
> > expected to dress immodestly for them.
The girls are expected to dress in a way suitable for sports. I don't
understand why some people, like muslims integrists, have problems
with that.
> > It is bad news that the Muslims are repeating anti-Semitic themes, but it
> > is
> > wonderful news that Jewish children are being switched to Jewish schools.
I'm glad that most jews in France are not like you. You speak like
muslim fundamentalists. Communautarism, communautarism,
communautarism. This is a bad trend. We in France don't care what is
the religion (or abscence of religion) of someone. We don't want to
discuss what your particular religion allow you to do or not do. I can
invent any set of obnoxious rules and pretend it's my religion, I have
no right to impose it on a particularly inportant part of the society
which is school.
cindys
"Nicolas Riesz" <can...@mathstar.net> wrote in message
news:fba58322.04021...@posting.google.com...
> "J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<Oy9Wb.4718$rv1.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > > And this paragraph mixes apples with oranges. What is the connection
> > > between
> > > Holocaust denial and boycotting classes on human reproduction or
refusing > > to
> > > attend physical education. If my children attended public school, I
would
> > > not permit them to attend secular sex education classes (if that is
what
> > > the
> > > article means when it says "classes on human reproduction")
>
> It regards biology classes. It's normal that children attend biology
> classes. And it's normal that reproduction is a part of biology
> classes.
> Note that parents can not forbid their children (using religious,
> philosophical or other political pretexts) to attend a part of their
> classes, as all children have a right to education.
Okay, as long as the "human reproduction" in question is from a biological
perspective and is not about dating advice and birth control.
>
> > and physical
> > > education classes can be a problem if they are co-ed or if the girls
are
> > > expected to dress immodestly for them.
>
> The girls are expected to dress in a way suitable for sports. I don't
> understand why some people, like muslims integrists, have problems
> with that.
I don't know what you mean by "suitable" but in my children's Jewish school,
girls wear the same long-sleeved shirts and skirts for phys ed class and to
play after-school sports as they do the rest of the day. When I was growing
up (I went to public school), I was required to wear shorts and a sleeveless
top for phys ed class. Would you consider it appropriate for the girls to be
topless for phys ed class or to participate in phys ed in their underwear?
To a religious Jew, immodest clothing such as shorts or sleeveless tops may
as well be that.
>
> > > It is bad news that the Muslims are repeating anti-Semitic themes, but
it
> > > is
> > > wonderful news that Jewish children are being switched to Jewish
schools.
>
> I'm glad that most jews in France are not like you. You speak like
> muslim fundamentalists.
Religious Jews simply follow traditional Judaism, and we will continue to do
so with or without the approval of others.
>Communautarism, communautarism,
> communautarism. This is a bad trend. We in France don't care what is
> the religion (or abscence of religion) of someone. We don't want to
> discuss what your particular religion allow you to do or not do.
Except the school is now actively forcing Jewish children to engage in
behaviors which Judaism forbids.
>I can
> invent any set of obnoxious rules and pretend it's my religion
Are you suggesting that I have "invented" the Jewish laws of modesty?
>I have
> no right to impose it on a particularly inportant part of the society
> which is school.
And no one is trying to impose Jewish beliefs on school. But when you insist
that Jewish children must dress immodestly in school and are required to
attend school on Jewish religious holidays, etc. you are imposing your
secularist beliefs on me and my children. And this is exactly the reason why
Jewish children belong in Jewish schools.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
J.J. Levin
Nicolas,
Can you please explain what is "communautarism" ??
Thanks,
Jay
Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines
> The French have banned religious apparel in public schools.
> The entire story is at
>
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-religion-france-headscarves.html
>
> Whether or not you consider this good news, there is some
> definitely good news too. Here is an excerpt from the
> NY Time story:
>
> The ban would also make clear pupils must follow the full official
curriculum
> and cannot object to or skip classes for religious reasons, he said.
BS"D
I'll must agree with the others here. Definitely not good news, for the
most part. Students cannot skip school because of Jewish observances, or
skip classes because their families find such classes objectionable? I find
that objectionable.
>
> Teachers have complained in recent years of problems with Muslim pupils
who
> interrupt history classes to deny the Nazis slaughtered Jews; boycott
classes on
> human reproduction, saying they are immodest; or refuse to attend physical
> education.
And what does any of this matter? They are using these rules against the
behavioral problems caused by a very few, while trampling on the many in the
process. In an American school, unacceptable behavior is punished by
temporary or permanent expulsion from classes or schools. What do the
French care about Holocaust denial? They don't. They just don't want their
classes disrupted. After all, the Holocaust deniers will influence very few
Frenchmen that it did not occur-- those who believe that will always be only
a fringe group in French society.
>
> They have also reported that Muslim pupils sometimes repeat anti-Semitic
themes
> they see on Arabic satellite television. Jewish families are increasingly
> switching their children from state schools to private Jewish schools to
avoid
> harrassment.
This could well be the only positive coming out of this affair. As I
understand it, however, schools which accept money from the French
Government are required to follow these same rules, and otherwise schools
cannot be accredited. The Jewish students may indeed attend Jewish schools,
but many Jewish schools will be required to acquiesce to the same policies
or risk deaccreditation. This info from a Frenchman who posts on
Alt.smokers.cigars, another group in which I participate. Let's face it--
French society stinks. Very little of what the French do is morally or
ethically correct.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
>
>
> Jay
>
Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines
> Henry Goodman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > "J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:ancWb.6343$rv1.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> >>cindys wrote:
> >>
> >>>"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:nwaWb.4772$rv1.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >>>
> >
> >
> > I object to a law which forbids Jewish boys to wear yarmulkas
> >
> >
>
> I'm not thrilled with it either, but I posted this thread
> this morning to emphasize the prohibition of holocaust denial.
> Few people seem to relate to that. But there are complaints about
> phys ed and sex education. Are these two items so anathema
> to religious Jews ?
BS"D
Yes, the way they are taught in American public schools, and quite possibly
in French public schools as well. I know that we opted for our children to
have a study hall instead, during that time period. My kids know all about
sexual reproduction, including that of humans. As to PE, when I was growing
up, High school PE was single-gender, and grade school/middle school was
little more than typical recess
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
.
>
> Jay
>
Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines
news:<Oy9Wb.4718$rv1.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > > And this paragraph mixes apples with oranges. What is the connection
> > > between
> > > Holocaust denial and boycotting classes on human reproduction or
refusing > > to
> > > attend physical education. If my children attended public school, I
would
> > > not permit them to attend secular sex education classes (if that is
what
> > > the
> > > article means when it says "classes on human reproduction")
>
> It regards biology classes. It's normal that children attend biology
> classes. And it's normal that reproduction is a part of biology
> classes.
> Note that parents can not forbid their children (using religious,
> philosophical or other political pretexts) to attend a part of their
> classes, as all children have a right to education.
BS"D
The USA is more enlightened than France in this regard. Children have a
right to a *suitable* education.
>
> > and physical
> > > education classes can be a problem if they are co-ed or if the girls
are
> > > expected to dress immodestly for them.
>
> The girls are expected to dress in a way suitable for sports. I don't
> understand why some people, like muslims integrists, have problems
> with that.
>
> > > It is bad news that the Muslims are repeating anti-Semitic themes, but
it
> > > is
> > > wonderful news that Jewish children are being switched to Jewish
schools.
>
> I'm glad that most jews in France are not like you. You speak like
> muslim fundamentalists. Communautarism, communautarism,
> communautarism. This is a bad trend. We in France don't care what is
> the religion (or abscence of religion) of someone. We don't want to
> discuss what your particular religion allow you to do or not do. I can
> invent any set of obnoxious rules and pretend it's my religion, I have
> no right to impose it on a particularly inportant part of the society
> which is school.
Which is why it's proper for Jewish children to attend Jewish school, so
they won't have your opinions, or those of French society at large, imposed
upon them. I do appreciate some things about France, like its cheese and
wine, and eau de vies of various sorts (including Calvados, a great favorite
of mine), some literature and visual art, and some science when performed
scientifically. But aside from these few things, I cannot understand why
anybody would consider living in France. Certainly not Jews, under these
circumstances.
Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines
BS"D
Nor do we.
We don't want to
> discuss what your particular religion allow you to do or not do.
Well, that's the difference. We're open minded.
I can
> invent any set of obnoxious rules and pretend it's my religion, I have
> no right to impose it on a particularly inportant part of the society
> which is school.
And how does a person's tasteful manner of dress impose religion on a
school? My children have received an excellent public school education
while dressing modestly, with my sons wearing their kippot and payos
(sidelocks of hair) and tzitzis (fringes on the corners of their garments),
have always been at the top of their classes, and have been widely respected
by other students and faculty of the schools. The fact that you and your
society cannot handle such things speaks volumes to the corrupt sense of
morality to be found in your nation. Truly a pity that (what I'm assuming
are) otherwise intelligent people can be so foolish.
Eliyahu Rooff
"Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines" <gan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2%fWb.19152$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:EH7Wb.4509$rv1.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> >
pupils
> who
> > interrupt history classes to deny the Nazis slaughtered Jews;
boycott
> classes on
> > human reproduction, saying they are immodest; or refuse to attend
physical
> > education.
>
> And what does any of this matter? They are using these rules against
the
> behavioral problems caused by a very few, while trampling on the many
in the
> process. In an American school, unacceptable behavior is punished by
> temporary or permanent expulsion from classes or schools. What do the
> French care about Holocaust denial? They don't. They just don't want
their
> classes disrupted. After all, the Holocaust deniers will influence
very few
> Frenchmen that it did not occur-- those who believe that will always
be only
> a fringe group in French society.
>
regardless of facts. To paraphrase Mr. Lincoln, "You can fool some of
the people some of the time, but you can fool yourself all the time." I
suspect that in another century, Vichy France will have been reduced in
French history texts to a small group of people in a small and obscure
village somewhere in the rural countryside of France. People will
believe whatever makes them most comfortable.
Eliyahu
Eliyahu
CW
The law allows them to wear head coverings that are not readily identifiable
with a particular religion, e.g., a beret.
I do not know if physical education classes are an issue if the sexes are
separated. Sex education, however, devoid of religious content, is just
instruction in biology and mechanics. I can see how many people, not just
OJ's, would look askance about that.
CW
Eliyahu Rooff
"CW" <ch...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gFdWb.7126$rv1.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm not thrilled with it either, but I posted this thread
> > this morning to emphasize the prohibition of holocaust denial.
> > Few people seem to relate to that. But there are complaints about
> > phys ed and sex education. Are these two items so anathema
> > to religious Jews ?
> >
> > Jay
> >
>
> The law allows them to wear head coverings that are not readily
identifiable
> with a particular religion, e.g., a beret.
>
> I do not know if physical education classes are an issue if the sexes
are
> separated. Sex education, however, devoid of religious content, is
just
> instruction in biology and mechanics. I can see how many people, not
just
> OJ's, would look askance about that.
>
feel awkward and uncomfortable in discussions. Think of it in the same
way as we do learning to read. The school teaches the children how to
read, while the parents teach them what to read and what not to read.
Eliyahu
Colin Samuel Rosenthal
In article <c0bp6b$nl0$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>, Henry Goodman
(henry....@virgin.net) says...
> Prohibition of holocaust denial seems an unnecessary denial of the right of free
> speech to this Englishman. I might want to punch somebody on the nose who denied
> the holocaust but I don't think he should be arrested.
> France has descended a long way since Voltaire said "I abhor his views but I
> will defend to the death his right to say it" (something like that)
With an attitude like that Henry you could become an honorary American
:-)
Meanwhile here in Denmark the Supreme Court has upheld the right of a
major supermarket chain to sack female employees who insist on wearing
an Islamic headscarf. What I find sad is that anyone gives a damn about
what they are wearing on their heads. It's not that it offends me as a
liberal or a lefty or Jew, but that it offends me as a descendant of a
long line of retailers. I know how hard it is to get decent staff and I
can't believe a major company is putting stumbling blocks in the way of
hiring motivated employees.
--
Colin
Dan Kimmel
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:c0bp6b$nl0$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Prohibition of holocaust denial seems an unnecessary denial of the right
of free
> speech to this Englishman. I might want to punch somebody on the nose who
denied
> the holocaust but I don't think he should be arrested.
> France has descended a long way since Voltaire said "I abhor his views but
I
> will defend to the death his right to say it" (something like that)
I agree, but certainly you would agree that it needn't be given equal time
in the classroom.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> >>>On 2004-02-10, J. J. Levin <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >>>>cindys wrote:
>> >>>>>"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>The entire story is at
>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-religion-franc
>> > e-headscarves.html
>> >
>> >>>>>I couldn't read the article because I didn't want to become a
> "member."
I'm a "member" it doesn't hurt. :-)
SNIPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!
>> You object to physical education oe sex education in school?
> -----------
> This is not about *me.* But since you asked...I think physical education is
> a good thing, provided that it is not coed and that the children are not
> forced to wear immodest clothing. Yes, I would object to sex education as
> taught in a secular school. My sons will learn what they need to know from
> me and my husband and/or in yeshiva from their rabbis, which will be in
> keeping with our religious philosophy. Aside from the fact that I most
> certainly do not think they need to learn how to put a condom on a banana,
> the entire philosophy of male/female relationships, beginning with the
> secular institution of "casual dating" runs completely contrary to the
> traditional Jewish view (that the sole purpose for dating is to determine
> whether or not two people will be compatible as husband and wife). In short,
> my objection to secular sex education begins long before they even get to
> the subject of STDs and birth control. My objection begins with the fact
> that the secular sex education teacher assumes that teenage boys and girls
> will be going on dates at all.
Oy Cindy, if the worst about secular sex education is the assumption
that they are casually dating it wouldn't be that bad. It's the
assumption tha they are casually "sleeping around" and thus they need
to sell condoms in the school cafeteria that really shows how much
we've fallen.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
cindys
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2004Feb1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
By the time we get to the condoms in the cafeteria, the horse is out of the
barn. The reason I explained my objection to sex ed the way I did above is
because the classic secular argument for why O Jews are being archaic in our
attitudes about sex education is the same as the secular argument for why we
are being archaic about not wanting our kids to watch TV.
For me, the problem with TV is not so much that my sons might see a
half-naked Britney Spears. The bigger problem (IMHO) is the completely
clothed sitcom where a secular lifestyle is portrayed as the norm (where it
obviously is not the norm for religious kids). For example, let's suppose
there's an episode where the kid goes to a party and gets drunk. The problem
for me is not so much that my kids watched a TV show where a kid got drunk
(and got in trouble for it), but the idea behind the show that attending a
coed party and getting drunk is a normal part of growing up.
WRT sex education, I am tired of the argument that O Jews are just sticking
our heads in the sand if we think O kids never engage in sex outside of
marriage, and that sex education does not "give kids ideas." I'm not worried
that my sons will "get ideas" from learning how to use a condom. My
objection is to the fact that the secular sex education teacher is teaching
about *relationships* between men and women in the secular world, and
presenting what is *normal* and expected dating behavior, etc. The O
teenagers (who like all teenagers have raging hormones) begin to incorporate
what the teacher is presenting as being *the norm,* begins to question the
validity of the torah approach to dating, and begins to consider casual
teenage dating as being within the realm of possibility for him/her. Another
example: The torah prohibits masturbation (for boys anyway) in the
strongest of terms. The sex education teacher devotes an inordinate amount
of time to promoting and encouraging children to engage in masturbation as a
healthy, safe alternative to a sexual relationship. How can this not lead to
confusion?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> separated. Sex education, however, devoid of religious content, is just
> instruction in biology and mechanics. I can see how many people, not
just
> OJ's, would look askance about that.
No, it's not. As a product of a public school sex education (and my
experience predates the exercise of putting condoms on bananas), in addition
to the biology and mechanics, the public school sex education is all about
"relationships" and begins with the premise that teenage boys and girls will
be going out on dates. (Right there, there is a conflict with traditional
Jewish practice, where dating happens only when one is ready to marry and is
for the purpose of finding a suitable mate.) When I had public school sex
education, I came away with the following:
1. Don't engage in casual sex. Wait until you are involved in a serious
relationship (not necessarily marriage).
2. Masturbation strongly encouraged. Myths about going blind etc. debunked.
3. Teenagers will invariably be engaging in sex (despite point #1 above,
which teacher makes it clear that he/she felt compelled to say it, but
tacitly understood by both teacher and students know that no one really
takes point #1 seriously).
3. A discussion of human reproduction with focus on the fact that no one
ever got pregnant from types of sexual activity which don't involve
intercourse (other than "heavy petting" - depending on what that involves,
etc.) Message: To avoid pregnancy, avoid actual intercourse, but full steam
ahead with everything else.
4. A lengthy discussion of every form of contraception known to mankind and
how it works. Samples sent around the classroom. (This is the part where
children now practice with the condom and the banana.)
5. A lengthy discussion of every STD known to mankind, what are the
symptoms, how to avoid it, etc.
6. When I was in school, there were no discussions of sexuality between
members of the same sex, but I would suspect there are now.
7. Rape/date rape also discussed. Emphasized to boys that when the girl
says no, she means no. (I do not object to point #7, except that hopefully
unmarried O Jews would not be alone together in the first place, thus
eliminating the potential for this scenario in the first place).
BTW, all the classes are coed.
Sorry, but this is a lot more than instruction in biology and mechanics.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Henry Goodman
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7NoWb.16239$fV5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
It shouldn't be given any time in the classroom; interesting question as to
whether Muslim schools should be prevented from teaching it under the Race
Relations Act.
Yisroel Markov
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
><mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>news:2004Feb1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
>> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>> > "J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
[snip]
>> >> You object to physical education oe sex education in school?
>> > -----------
>> > This is not about *me.*
And I suspect that Jay knew it. :-(
Yes. I've seen it happen. Inculcation of values via the media is a
form of peer pressure.
>Another
>example: The torah prohibits masturbation (for boys anyway) in the
>strongest of terms. The sex education teacher devotes an inordinate amount
>of time to promoting and encouraging children to engage in masturbation as a
>healthy, safe alternative to a sexual relationship. How can this not lead to
>confusion?
Excellent post, Cindy.
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
J. J. Levin
Where do you live? I have 3 kids, 2 of whom finished high school 3 years ago.
They were never taught how to masturbate or encouraged to do so in sex
ed. We live in a suburb in New Jersey, 15 miles from New York City, quite
a liberal town (with a Democratic mayor and a Republican city council),
not in the desert and not on Mars. I wonder where this free-wheeling sex
education you describe above takes place.
I guarantee you that had our high school encouraged masturbation (of either sex)
the school principal would have been fired within a day and the mayor would
have been recalled within a week.
Jay
cindys
I live in Upstate New York and attended an extremely academically
competitive, well-respected, public high school in an upper middle class
suburb. What I have described is a true account of my own personal public
high school experience with sex education (10th grade). You say that your
children's sex ed teacher did not promote masturbation. Okay, what about the
other things I mentioned? I would very interested to hear what was your
children's experience and how sex ed has changed since I was in high school.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:402a6736...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Thanks.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Micha Berger
: The French have banned religious apparel in public schools.
This is simple xenophobia caused by the immigration of Moslems to
Europe. The problem is that once hatred of others is awakened, it
affects all others.
And with Gibson's movie coming out with French (and German, and...)
subtitles, there is the possibility, G-d forbid, of that hatred getting
rechanneled.
-mi
cindys
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
> >
> ><mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
> >news:2004Feb1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> >> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
[snippage for brevity]
----------
And here's something else that goes on in public schools, which I personally
find very problematic: Beginning in 6th grade (when the children are 11
years old), the school holds dances several times a year. This was the case
when I was in 6th grade and is still the case now. Some kids go "stag."
Other kids have dates or take their "girlfriend" or "boyfriend." One of my
friends (whose children attend public school and is not the least bit
religious) was horrified to overhear her 11-year-old son on the phone
discussing that a girl in his class, whom he son wanted to "date" was the
"steady girlfriend" of one of his friends. She was more horrified to
discover that the other boy's parents had apparently been encouraging the
relationship by dropping the "couple" off at movies or at restaurants for
their "dates." Obviously, the parents who are allowing and encouraging this
sort of thing are at fault, and the entire blame cannot be laid at the
doorstep of the school. Nevertheless, the school dances do feed directly
into this sort of behavior and by holding "dances," the school is actively
promoting and encouraging this type of thing.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
J. J. Levin
This is new? I thought the movie only spoke Latin and Aramaic, in
order to be more "authentic", and that there would be NO subtitles ??
Jay
CW
"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l6vWb.341$I67....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
I do not think that Gibson wanted to to max out the commercial potential of
the Aramaic and Latin speaking markets. :-)
I am pleased that he apparently cut the most offensive scene in the movie.
CW
Creedmooronics!
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bQpWb.54736$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> education, I came away with the following:
>
> 1. Don't engage in casual sex. Wait until you are involved in a serious
> relationship (not necessarily marriage).
> 2. Masturbation strongly encouraged. Myths about going blind etc.
debunked.
> 3. Teenagers will invariably be engaging in sex (despite point #1 above,
> which teacher makes it clear that he/she felt compelled to say it, but
> tacitly understood by both teacher and students know that no one really
> takes point #1 seriously).
> 3. A discussion of human reproduction with focus on the fact that no one
> ever got pregnant from types of sexual activity which don't involve
> intercourse (other than "heavy petting" - depending on what that involves,
> etc.) Message: To avoid pregnancy, avoid actual intercourse, but full
steam
> ahead with everything else.
My sex ed teacher showed us a picture of Yasser Arafat YMS, to prove that
anal sex (ob Jewish: that is biah shelo kedarka) can result in pregnancy and
to warn us against same.
IS
Dan Kimmel
"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l6vWb.341$I67....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
That was his original intent. He abandoned it some time ago.
Micha Berger
: This is new? I thought the movie only spoke Latin and Aramaic, in
: order to be more "authentic", and that there would be NO subtitles ??
Actually, I was told by R' Dr David Berger that for some unfathomable
reason, the Romans will be speaking Greek???
I assumed the subtitles. And in France, it would be against the law
for a non-French movie to be shown without subtitles. Ontario has
wacky laws like that too, but I don't know if they have this one.
-mi
Eliyahu Rooff
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:c0eu5m$162ri0$1...@ID-113975.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:20:38 +0000 (UTC), J. J. Levin
<jjl...@optonline.net> wrote:
> : This is new? I thought the movie only spoke Latin and Aramaic, in
> : order to be more "authentic", and that there would be NO subtitles
??
>
> Actually, I was told by R' Dr David Berger that for some unfathomable
> reason, the Romans will be speaking Greek???
>
movie were really accurate, the Roman soldiers _ought to_ be speaking
Greek. Apparently, it was the most commonly used language by their
troops in the region. I'm still hoping that when and if it's released,
the movie turns into a total flop.
Eliyahu
Micha Berger
thinking overly provincially. The threat in the US is IMHO minimal.
However, in Europe, antisemitism is on the rise already. The last
thing Jews there need is another excuse to ratchet it up a notch.
-mi
J.J. Levin
]
cindys wrote:
I spoke with all 3 of my children today. My daughter graduated high school 8
years ago. My two sons graduated 3 years ago. Same school in Northern NJ.
Suburban, upper middle class, very academically competitive, held in high
regard, very close to NY City (15 miles).
Phys ed: was coed. Girls could wear either T-shirts and shorts or sweat-
suits (top, bottom, or both), or any combination of the above.
No one was forced to wear anything "immodest".
Sex education was called "health class". All 3 had the same version. Condoms
were NOT readily available or sold. If you wanted a condom, you had to go to the
nurse's station and ask for one.
AIDS was already an issue 11 years ago, and certainly 3 years ago. They
were SCARED of sleeping around, not encouraged to do so. They were taught
about AIDS, STDs, and there was a video about date rape. They were told that
IF they wanted to do it, at least they should be informed about how to protect
themselves.
Masturbation was NOT encouraged; it was discussed, very briefly, as a
physiological matter, almost in passing. No encouragment. One of my sons
remembers that there was some stigma attached to masturbation in history
class when the Roman Empire was taught, and the "don't spill your seed"
matter came up as a biblical injunction (and this in a secular high school).
All three kids were given a demonstration of how condoms are used, not by school
personnel but by reps from Planned Parenthood.
Cindy, you are entitled to teach your kids about sex in any manner you wish.
I respect your right to do so, and your kids will probably be better off
due to your personal involvement and care. But as you can see, what happens
in high school wrt to sex ed (at least in the one my kids attended) is a
far cry from what you described above.
Jay
Susan S
Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>:
Greek was the primary language of the Roman soldiers. Why Gibson
chose Latin, I can't say. Maybe he forgot to do that little extra
research. You would think he would have consulted some Christian
Bible experts and there would have been at least one to set him
straight.
I have read there are subtitles.
Susan Silberstein
Henry Goodman
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:c0f0bg$15oacn$1...@ID-113975.news.uni-berlin.de...
Yes but in America there are lots of Christians who take their religion
seriously. Much less so here in Europe where the anti-Semites who take their
religion seriously are Moslems.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >>>"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>cindys wrote:
>> >>>>>"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>Tim Meushaw wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>cindys wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>"J. J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
This _is_ a very deep thread. SNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP
Cindy, the fact that he _only_ reacted to your point about
masturbation seems to me a pretty clear indicator that he knows
you're 100% right on all the others.
Sorry I had to snip your excellent, excellent post. I hope most
people have seen it by now.
Micha Berger
: Greek was the primary language of the Roman soldiers. Why Gibson
: chose Latin, I can't say. Maybe he forgot to do that little extra
: research. You would think he would have consulted some Christian
: Bible experts and there would have been at least one to set him
: straight.
So apparantly I misremembered, and Dr Berger expressed his finding
the use of Latin funny. I'll ask.
: I have read there are subtitles.
From what I read, your info is out of date. They changed their minds.
-mi
--
Micha Berger A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Micha Berger
:> The motivation behind my post is that I had just realized that I was
:> thinking overly provincially. The threat in the US is IMHO minimal.
:> However, in Europe, antisemitism is on the rise already. The last
:> thing Jews there need is another excuse to ratchet it up a notch.
: Yes but in America there are lots of Christians who take their religion
: seriously. Much less so here in Europe where the anti-Semites who take their
: religion seriously are Moslems.
Actually, in the US the "lots of Christians" is quite likely the same
minority (as a percentage) you see on your side of the pond. Outside
the bible belt, fewer; within it, many more.
Besides, one needn't take religion seriously for the movie to serve
as a goad. It's funny how many people "find religion" when it will
justify something they want justified.
J.J. Levin
Alas, Moshe, you wrote the above before you saw my reply. It took
me a few hours to poost it not because Cindy was right, but because
I wanted to make sure _I_ got everything right, by talking to my
children before posting. Here is what I wrote after speaking to
them:
Steve Goldfarb
>Cindy, you are entitled to teach your kids about sex in any manner you wish.
>I respect your right to do so, and your kids will probably be better off
>due to your personal involvement and care. But as you can see, what happens
>in high school wrt to sex ed (at least in the one my kids attended) is a
>far cry from what you described above.
In *any* manner she wishes? I'm not sure about that -- certainly any
*responsible* manner, and it's clear from her posts that she's doing that.
I think the government does have a compelling interest in making sure that
kids get some sex education -- people like Cindy are definitely not the
problem here, but if you allow for *any* manner, well, I'm not sure if I
can go that far. Don't know how you'd measure it or whatever, though.
But one thing's clear to me (and to Cindy) -- her kids don't belong in
public school. But as long as she's allowed to send her kids to private
school, then nobody's being forced to do anything.
Secular people are allowed to have values too -- call it secular humanism
if you want, but I think schools ought to be allowed to teach it. They
don't need to be value-free. And some of those values may well contradict
certain religious values -- for example, I think it's important to teach
equality between the sexes, and to encourage women to excel at whatever
they wish to do. I imagine that religious Muslims would object to this.
Fine - that's why they're permitted to send their kids to private schools.
I support sex education - I think the gov't has a compelling interest in
preventing teenage pregnancies and STDs. Even if it means an increase in
teenage sex (which I'm not convinced it does, but even if it did I
wouldn't care) But I respect your right to feel otherwise -- provided that
your remedy is to put your kids in private school, and not to prevent
other kids from getting the instruction they need.
In a way I appreciate what France is doing -- they feel that the gov't has
a comepelling interest in promoting secularism. I prefer our system, and
wouldn't want to live under theirs, but I appreciate what they're trying
to do. Good luck to 'em.
--sg
>Jay
--
---------------------------------------
Buy my boat!
http://www.oscodagroup.com/boat
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger wrote:
>> J. J. Levin <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> : The French have banned religious apparel in public schools.
>>
>> This is simple xenophobia caused by the immigration of Moslems to
>> Europe. The problem is that once hatred of others is awakened, it
>> affects all others.
>>
>> And with Gibson's movie coming out with French (and German, and...)
>> subtitles, there is the possibility, G-d forbid, of that hatred
>> getting rechanneled.
>
> order to be more "authentic", and that there would be NO subtitles ??
Jay, are you really surprised? Did you think Mr. Gibson is stupid
enough to produce a movie which no one can possibly understand.
It _sounded_ nice to say "no subtitles", but was it realistic?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
>
>> thinking overly provincially. The threat in the US is IMHO minimal.
>> However, in Europe, antisemitism is on the rise already. The last
>> thing Jews there need is another excuse to ratchet it up a notch.
>
> seriously. Much less so here in Europe where the anti-Semites who take their
> religion seriously are Moslems.
I am missing Susan Cohen's input to this thread.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from Micha
> Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:20:38 +0000 (UTC), J. J. Levin <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>: This is new? I thought the movie only spoke Latin and Aramaic, in
>>: order to be more "authentic", and that there would be NO subtitles ??
>>
>>Actually, I was told by R' Dr David Berger that for some unfathomable
>>reason, the Romans will be speaking Greek???
>>
>>I assumed the subtitles. And in France, it would be against the law
>>for a non-French movie to be shown without subtitles. Ontario has
>>wacky laws like that too, but I don't know if they have this one.
>>
>>-mi
>
> Greek was the primary language of the Roman soldiers. Why Gibson
> chose Latin, I can't say. Maybe he forgot to do that little extra
> research. You would think he would have consulted some Christian
This reminds me of the glatt kosher restaurant with a Chinese waiter
who is speaking Yiddish. A customer asks the owner how this is possible
and the owner says, "HE THINKS HE'S SPEAKING ENGLISH !!"
Josh
Lee Ratner
I dobut it, most Europeans are not actively Christian and a good
number of them are hostile to any form of religion and think every
religion is silly and barbaric. The French law is more of a result of
bigotry towards all religion than Christian bigotry towards
non-Christians.
Eliyahu Rooff
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:08:30 +0000 (UTC), Henry Goodman
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> :> The motivation behind my post is that I had just realized that I
was
> :> thinking overly provincially. The threat in the US is IMHO minimal.
> :> However, in Europe, antisemitism is on the rise already. The last
> :> thing Jews there need is another excuse to ratchet it up a notch.
>
> : Yes but in America there are lots of Christians who take their
religion
> : seriously. Much less so here in Europe where the anti-Semites who
take their
> : religion seriously are Moslems.
>
> Actually, in the US the "lots of Christians" is quite likely the same
> minority (as a percentage) you see on your side of the pond. Outside
> the bible belt, fewer; within it, many more.
>
church, has lamented the fact that those folks in Europe who identify
themselves as Xtian usually mean it more in a cultural than religious
sense, and that there are far fewer who even attend church than in the
US. IIRC, it's something like 7% of those who are nominally Xtian, as
compared to something like 35% here. I'm not sure how the attendance and
participation statistics for Jews compare, but I would expect a lot more
parity. (Just did a quick search after writing this, and it looks like
my recall wasn't too far off. See,
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/31_18/90990424/p1/article.jhtml
)
Eliyahu
cindys
"J.J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:oVAWb.5256$I67.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > I live in Upstate New York and attended an extremely academically
> > competitive, well-respected, public high school in an upper middle class
> > suburb. What I have described is a true account of my own personal
public
> > high school experience with sex education (10th grade). You say that
your
> > children's sex ed teacher did not promote masturbation. Okay, what about
the
> > other things I mentioned? I would very interested to hear what was your
> > children's experience and how sex ed has changed since I was in high
school.
> > Best regards,
> > ---Cindy S.
>
>
> I spoke with all 3 of my children today. My daughter graduated high school
8
> years ago. My two sons graduated 3 years ago. Same school in Northern NJ.
> Suburban, upper middle class, very academically competitive, held in high
> regard, very close to NY City (15 miles).
>
> Phys ed: was coed. Girls could wear either T-shirts and shorts or sweat-
> suits (top, bottom, or both), or any combination of the above.
> No one was forced to wear anything "immodest".
None of the clothing you have described above (either shorts or sweats)
would be acceptable attire for a religious girl, and co-ed phys ed would not
be acceptable for religious Jewish children. However, in the USA, if a girl
wanted to dress modestly in phys ed for religious reasons, I doubt there
would be a problem, as the school would be risking a civil rights lawsuit to
refuse. But if you will recall, the issue was not about what American
children were being expected to wear but rather what children in France may
or may not be *forced* to wear. The French poster was asserting that there
was nothing wrong with the French public school system expecting that
children wear *suitable* attire for phys ed class. My response was that
there *is* something wrong when the *suitable* attire includes immodest
clothing and the word *expected* is essentially a euphemism for *forced.* I
described what I was expected to wear, when I was younger, in the U.S.
public school system as an example of phys ed clothing that religious Jews
would consider immodest. In the year 2004, I doubt very much that an
American public school could legally get away with forcing anyone to wear
anything.
>
> Sex education was called "health class".
Yes, it was called *health class* when I was in high school also.
>All 3 had the same version. Condoms
> were NOT readily available or sold.
Nor did I say that they were. I said they were passed around in class for
educational purposes (along with other forms of contraception), so the
children could see them and handle them, and the children were given
instructions in their use. When I was in *health class,* we did not practice
putting them on bananas, but now the children do, at least in the public
high schools in my city. I would suspect this is part of the New York State
curriculum. I also never said the children were allowed to keep the condoms.
>If you wanted a condom, you had to go to the
> nurse's station and ask for one.
When I was in high school, the school nurse did not distribute condoms. Kids
who wanted them had to buy them in a pharmacy, where they were kept behind
the counter, and the kids would need to ask the pharmacist for them (back
then, a lot of pharmacists wouldn't sell them to kids either).
>
> AIDS was already an issue 11 years ago, and certainly 3 years ago. They
> were SCARED of sleeping around, not encouraged to do so. They were taught
> about AIDS, STDs, and there was a video about date rape. They were told
that
> IF they wanted to do it, at least they should be informed about how to
protect
> themselves.
AIDs was not an issue when I was in high school, but gonorrhea and syphilis
were. And we also saw films about STDs (back then, they were called
"venereal diseases") and told how to protect ourselves.
>
> Masturbation was NOT encouraged; it was discussed, very briefly, as a
> physiological matter, almost in passing. No encouragment. One of my sons
> remembers that there was some stigma attached to masturbation in history
> class when the Roman Empire was taught, and the "don't spill your seed"
> matter came up as a biblical injunction (and this in a secular high
school).
Yes, and my *health class* included a discussion of the foolishness of the
stigma and the myth that people go "blind" when in fact, in moderrn times,
masturbation is now known to be a normal, natural, healthy process, there is
nothing wrong with doing it, and it is a good alternative to engaging in sex
because it carries no risk of STDs.
> All three kids were given a demonstration of how condoms are used, not by
school
> personnel but by reps from Planned Parenthood.
I don't see what difference it makes who is doing the demonstration. The
curriculum is the same, no matter who is teaching it.
>
> Cindy, you are entitled to teach your kids about sex in any manner you
wish.
May I remind you, that you are the one who personalized this thread.
> I respect your right to do so, and your kids will probably be better off
> due to your personal involvement and care. But as you can see, what
happens
> in high school wrt to sex ed (at least in the one my kids attended) is a
> far cry from what you described above.
As I said, I described my own personal public high school experience, and I
know for a fact that in many public schools today, part of the curriculum
includes practicing putting condoms on bananas. To be honest, I can't see
where your description of today's *health education* differs so much from my
experience, other than the teacher wasn't outright promoting masturbation.
When I was in school, there was no AIDs, but there were other STDs. Also, it
was a different poster who said that condoms were being sold in the school
cafeteria.
Now, I would like to add the following points:
1. The first point is that this thread was never about *me.* The thread was
about changes in the French school system that would *mandate* that all
children have to wear immodest clothing for phys ed, religious objections
notwithstanding, and would *mandate* that children could not take time off
for religious holidays, and would *mandate* that children could not be
excused from secular sex education classes. In the U.S., this could not
happen as these *mandates* would qualify as an abrogation of our civil
rights. I don't know why you changed the focus of the thread to Cindy S's
personal opinions of the American public school sex education experience.
2. However, once it became about *me,* the second point was that my main
objection to *health class* was not the condoms, etc. but that there is an
inherent problem in religious Jewish children learning about "relationships"
from secular, gentile teachers whose views obviously reflect the secular
society at large and not the Jewish religious view. Activities which
represent *a normal part of growing up* to the secular public are light
years away from the religious Jewish approach, as I stated, beginning with
the premise that teenage boys and girls will be dating. In the religious
world, boys and girls are not supposed to be interacting socially at all,
much less going on "dates."
3. Point three is that all of this is moot anyway because families who feel
as I do generally do not send their children to public schools, so none of
this would ever be an issue. I promise you, our local yeshiva does not have
Planned Parenthood representatives demonstrating the use of condoms.
4. For the record, the French poster was taking issue with the fact that I
said Jewish children should go to Jewish schools. According to him, if we
send our children to Jewish schools, we are "communautare" (an expression
which was never defined, but which I believe is something like
fundamentalistic separatists), so that is "bad." According to his view, we
need to send our children to secular schools in order to be
"universalistes," (i.e. assimilated) which is "good," and while our children
are there, the values of secular French society (as opposed to Jewish
values) will be forced down their throats. They will not be allowed to wear
a kippah, dress modestly, miss school on Yom Kippur or opt out of sex
education class, and the parents will have no recourse at all. The last time
I knew, in the USA, children could wear kippot, dress modestly, miss school
for religious reasons, and opt out of sex ed, and holocaust denial would not
be tolerated in a public school, either. I thank God every day I live in
America.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>
>
>
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
"J.J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> writes:
> I spoke with all 3 of my children today. My daughter graduated high school 8
> years ago. My two sons graduated 3 years ago. Same school in Northern NJ.
> Suburban, upper middle class, very academically competitive, held in high
> regard, very close to NY City (15 miles).
>
> Phys ed: was coed. Girls could wear either T-shirts and shorts or sweat-
> suits (top, bottom, or both), or any combination of the above.
> No one was forced to wear anything "immodest".
Ever been a teenage boy? Girls in T-shirts & shorts combined with
physical exertion certainly IS immodest (though admittedly not by
desensitized western secular standards).
> Sex education was called "health class". All 3 had the same version. Condoms
> were NOT readily available or sold. If you wanted a condom, you had to go to the
> nurse's station and ask for one.
"No questions asked", I imagine. And what was taught in "health
class" about sexuality and relationships?
> AIDS was already an issue 11 years ago, and certainly 3 years ago. They
> were SCARED of sleeping around, not encouraged to do so. They were taught
> about AIDS, STDs, and there was a video about date rape. They were told that
> IF they wanted to do it, at least they should be informed about how to protect
> themselves.
And they were encouraged to have relationships in high school,
evidently. THIS is something that many parents would legitimately
want to be able to opt out of, at least, if not remove from the
schools.
> Masturbation was NOT encouraged; it was discussed, very briefly, as a
> physiological matter, almost in passing. No encouragment.
To a teenage boy, acknowledgement/acceptance of the concept without
discouragement IS encouragement. Admittedly not to the extent that
was previously claimed, however.
> One of my sons
> remembers that there was some stigma attached to masturbation in history
> class when the Roman Empire was taught, and the "don't spill your seed"
> matter came up as a biblical injunction (and this in a secular high school).
> All three kids were given a demonstration of how condoms are used, not by school
> personnel but by reps from Planned Parenthood.
So? What difference does it make WHO demonstrated it?
> Cindy, you are entitled to teach your kids about sex in any manner you wish.
> I respect your right to do so, and your kids will probably be better off
> due to your personal involvement and care. But as you can see, what happens
> in high school wrt to sex ed (at least in the one my kids attended) is a
> far cry from what you described above.
Not that far, really.
-Shlomo-
Henry Goodman
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:102n6n2...@corp.supernews.com...
I understand that the average Sunday attendance at Church of England churches
(the default religion here) is now less than a million out of a population of 55
million. It is said that there are numerically more that attend mosque weekly
than attend church. The Jewish population here is believed to be about 300,000;
I don't have figures for shul attendance; one difference from the USA is that
the majority are nominally Orthodox.
J. J. Levin
> "J.J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>
>>I spoke with all 3 of my children today. My daughter graduated high school 8
>>years ago. My two sons graduated 3 years ago. Same school in Northern NJ.
>>Suburban, upper middle class, very academically competitive, held in high
>>regard, very close to NY City (15 miles).
>>
>>Phys ed: was coed. Girls could wear either T-shirts and shorts or sweat-
>>suits (top, bottom, or both), or any combination of the above.
>>No one was forced to wear anything "immodest".
>
>
> Ever been a teenage boy? Girls in T-shirts & shorts combined with
> physical exertion certainly IS immodest (though admittedly not by
> desensitized western secular standards).
>
>
How about girls in sweat suits? Do they turn religious boys into
crazed sex monsters?
>>Sex education was called "health class". All 3 had the same version. Condoms
>>were NOT readily available or sold. If you wanted a condom, you had to go to the
>>nurse's station and ask for one.
>
>
> "No questions asked", I imagine. And what was taught in "health
> class" about sexuality and relationships?
>
>
>>AIDS was already an issue 11 years ago, and certainly 3 years ago. They
>>were SCARED of sleeping around, not encouraged to do so. They were taught
>>about AIDS, STDs, and there was a video about date rape. They were told that
>>IF they wanted to do it, at least they should be informed about how to protect
>>themselves.
>
>
> And they were encouraged to have relationships in high school,
> evidently. THIS is something that many parents would legitimately
> want to be able to opt out of, at least, if not remove from the
> schools.
>
>
Please read my post above. I wrote that they were warned of AIDS
and scared of sleeping around. From that to your conclusion that
they were encouraged to have relationships is quite far fetched.
>>Masturbation was NOT encouraged; it was discussed, very briefly, as a
>>physiological matter, almost in passing. No encouragment.
>
>
> To a teenage boy, acknowledgement/acceptance of the concept without
> discouragement IS encouragement. Admittedly not to the extent that
> was previously claimed, however.
>
>
Right. It's a fact of life. Frankly I'd rather have my kids masturbate
than sleep around. Wouldn't you?
Ever read "Z'man Elul" by Dov Alboim (who was ultra-O) ? If you think
Orthodox boys don't masturbate (and then go on horrible guilt trips)
you should become more informed.
>>One of my sons
>>remembers that there was some stigma attached to masturbation in history
>>class when the Roman Empire was taught, and the "don't spill your seed"
>>matter came up as a biblical injunction (and this in a secular high school).
>>All three kids were given a demonstration of how condoms are used, not by school
>>personnel but by reps from Planned Parenthood.
>
>
> So? What difference does it make WHO demonstrated it?
>
Planned Parenthood people are trained on delivery of material to
all age groups, including teenagers. Better them than a teacher
the kids are familiar wiuth.
>
>>Cindy, you are entitled to teach your kids about sex in any manner you wish.
>>I respect your right to do so, and your kids will probably be better off
>>due to your personal involvement and care. But as you can see, what happens
>>in high school wrt to sex ed (at least in the one my kids attended) is a
>>far cry from what you described above.
>
>
> Not that far, really.
>
If you can't see the difference between Cindy's claim that teachers encourage
masturbation and between what I wrote above, this discussion is quite futile.
Jay
Andy Katz
>Jay, are you really surprised? Did you think Mr. Gibson is stupid
>enough to produce a movie which no one can possibly understand.
>It _sounded_ nice to say "no subtitles", but was it realistic?
Sure, Moshe. Only then it would have been an opera ... without the
signing;--)
Andy Katz
____________________________________________
"There's more to being a Jew than jewelry!"
Charlotte York, "Sex & The City"
The Simpsons
a...@earthlink.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
Susan S
Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:54:14 +0000 (UTC), Susan S <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: Greek was the primary language of the Roman soldiers. Why Gibson
>: chose Latin, I can't say. Maybe he forgot to do that little extra
>: research. You would think he would have consulted some Christian
>: Bible experts and there would have been at least one to set him
>: straight.
>
>So apparantly I misremembered, and Dr Berger expressed his finding
>the use of Latin funny. I'll ask.
>
>: I have read there are subtitles.
>
> From what I read, your info is out of date. They changed their minds.
>
>-mi
There have been several screenings in the last few weeks; AFAIK
all have had subtitles. Unless Abraham Foxman understands Latin,
there is little chance he heard the anti-Jewish content he
reported.
Susan Silberstein
cindys
> Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson) wrote:
> > "J.J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I spoke with all 3 of my children today. My daughter graduated high
school 8
> >>years ago. My two sons graduated 3 years ago. Same school in Northern
NJ.
> >>Suburban, upper middle class, very academically competitive, held in
high
> >>regard, very close to NY City (15 miles).
> >>
> >>Phys ed: was coed. Girls could wear either T-shirts and shorts or sweat-
> >>suits (top, bottom, or both), or any combination of the above.
> >>No one was forced to wear anything "immodest".
> >
> >
> > Ever been a teenage boy? Girls in T-shirts & shorts combined with
> > physical exertion certainly IS immodest (though admittedly not by
> > desensitized western secular standards).
> >
> >
>
> How about girls in sweat suits? Do they turn religious boys into
> crazed sex monsters?
The point is that from a religious perspective, sweat suits (which are
pants) are considered inappropriate attire for Jewish girls, and it is
similarly inappropriate for boys and girls to be engaged in playing sports
together no matter what anybody is wearing.
>
> >>Sex education was called "health class". All 3 had the same version.
Condoms
> >>were NOT readily available or sold. If you wanted a condom, you had to
go to the
> >>nurse's station and ask for one.
> >
> >
> > "No questions asked", I imagine. And what was taught in "health
> > class" about sexuality and relationships?
> >
> >
> >>AIDS was already an issue 11 years ago, and certainly 3 years ago. They
> >>were SCARED of sleeping around, not encouraged to do so. They were
taught
> >>about AIDS, STDs, and there was a video about date rape. They were told
that
> >>IF they wanted to do it, at least they should be informed about how to
protect
> >>themselves.
> >
> >
> > And they were encouraged to have relationships in high school,
> > evidently. THIS is something that many parents would legitimately
> > want to be able to opt out of, at least, if not remove from the
> > schools.
> >
> >
>
>
> Please read my post above. I wrote that they were warned of AIDS
> and scared of sleeping around. From that to your conclusion that
> they were encouraged to have relationships is quite far fetched.
You're still side-stepping the real issue, which is: They are "encouraged
to have relationships in high school," i.e. to go out on dates, to have a
boyfriend/girlfriend. This is the problem. No one is having sex in a vacuum
with a total stranger. It's the boyfriend/girlfriend relationship that
segues into sex. Yes, they are scared of AIDS, which to their minds, they
could contract from having sex with someone they hardly know, but they don't
think they are going to contract it from their girlfriends/boyfriends.
Teenagers consider that they are immortal. You know that. But the point is
not about AIDS. The point is that sex is a special, holy, spiritual bond
that is part and parcel of the relationship between husband and wife. From a
religious perspective, boys and girls are not supposed to be talking to each
other, much less dating each other, and the *health* classes are all based
on the premise that teenage dating/having a boyfriend/girlfriend is *a
normal part of growing up.* It is *not* a normal part of growing up in the
Orthodox Jewish world, and this is *the idea* I would not want my sons to
have (that it's okay to engage in casual dating or attend a coed party). In
the yeshiva, dating a girl or attending a coed party is grounds for
expulsion.
>
> >>Masturbation was NOT encouraged; it was discussed, very briefly, as a
> >>physiological matter, almost in passing. No encouragment.
> >
> >
> > To a teenage boy, acknowledgement/acceptance of the concept without
> > discouragement IS encouragement. Admittedly not to the extent that
> > was previously claimed, however.
> >
> >
>
> Right. It's a fact of life. Frankly I'd rather have my kids masturbate
> than sleep around. Wouldn't you?
>
> Ever read "Z'man Elul" by Dov Alboim (who was ultra-O) ? If you think
> Orthodox boys don't masturbate (and then go on horrible guilt trips)
> you should become more informed.
No one said they don't do it, but they don't need the secular, gentile woman
from Planned Parenthood telling them it's okay.
>
> >>One of my sons
> >>remembers that there was some stigma attached to masturbation in history
> >>class when the Roman Empire was taught, and the "don't spill your seed"
> >>matter came up as a biblical injunction (and this in a secular high
school).
> >>All three kids were given a demonstration of how condoms are used, not
by school
> >>personnel but by reps from Planned Parenthood.
> >
> >
> > So? What difference does it make WHO demonstrated it?
> >
>
> Planned Parenthood people are trained on delivery of material to
> all age groups, including teenagers. Better them than a teacher
> the kids are familiar wiuth.
The issue is not about *who* is saying it but that it is being said at all.
> >>Cindy, you are entitled to teach your kids about sex in any manner you
wish.
> >>I respect your right to do so, and your kids will probably be better off
> >>due to your personal involvement and care. But as you can see, what
happens
> >>in high school wrt to sex ed (at least in the one my kids attended) is a
> >>far cry from what you described above.
> >
> >
> > Not that far, really.
> >
>
> If you can't see the difference between Cindy's claim that teachers
encourage
> masturbation and between what I wrote above, this discussion is quite
futile.
>
It seems to me that you have not refuted anything I have said. To whit:
1. Do the teachers begin with the premise that teenagers will be dating?
Yes.
2. Are the children told that the main reason not to have sex is to avoid an
STD or pregnancy? Yes.
3. Are they then instructed about methods for avoiding STDs and pregnancy?
Yes. Does this include practicing with condoms and bananas? Yes.
4. Are they taught about same-sex relationships? Yes.
5. Are they taught that date rape is wrong? Yes. (Of course, there can be no
*date rape* when boys and girls are not allowed to be alone together and
there is no *date* to begin.)
But again, let's try to keep on track. I don't have any problems with
*health class,* and I never really did. Jay, if you think it was a good
experience for your children, fine. My issue begins when and only when the
school tells me that it is *mandatory* for my child to be a participant in
these classes. This is what is happening in France. And this is what I was
objecting to.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
(big snip)
>But again, let's try to keep on track. I don't have any problems with
>*health class,* and I never really did. Jay, if you think it was a good
>experience for your children, fine. My issue begins when and only when the
>school tells me that it is *mandatory* for my child to be a participant in
>these classes. This is what is happening in France. And this is what I was
>objecting to.
AFAIK it's not mandatory for children to attend public school, even in
France. Thus nobody's forcing anybody's kids to do anything.
(although I'm still glad that here in the US kids are allowed to opt out
for religious or other reasons)
--sg
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
Don Levey
> Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson) wrote:
> > "J.J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> >>
> >>Phys ed: was coed. Girls could wear either T-shirts and shorts or sweat-
> >>suits (top, bottom, or both), or any combination of the above.
> >>No one was forced to wear anything "immodest".
> > Ever been a teenage boy? Girls in T-shirts & shorts combined with
> > physical exertion certainly IS immodest (though admittedly not by
> > desensitized western secular standards).
> >
>
> How about girls in sweat suits? Do they turn religious boys into
> crazed sex monsters?
>
To a teen-age boy, a girl in an eskimo parka, wrapped in an afghan,
and buried under 15 feet of leaves is enough to turn him on. DAMHIKT.
But that's besides the point, really. It's not who will get aroused,
what is or is not permitted by the dress code. Pants of any kind,
IIRC, are not permitted. Much like a high school friend of mine (well,
a friend I had when I was in high school) who went to a Catholic
school. Pants were not permitted. Strangely, the uniform included
short skirts (short being just above the knee).
>
>
> >>Sex education was called "health class". All 3 had the same version. Condoms
> >> were NOT readily available or sold. If you wanted a condom, you had
> >> to go to the nurse's station and ask for one.
> > "No questions asked", I imagine. And what was taught in "health
> > class" about sexuality and relationships?
> >
We had precious little on "relationships." As someone who grew up
outside of the O world, I wish we had had more. From somewhere.
Eventually we got it - from my synogogue's youth group. When I was
in HS we couldn't get condoms that way - and STDs and pregnancy were
rampant amongst "certain people."
> >>AIDS was already an issue 11 years ago, and certainly 3 years ago. They
> >>were SCARED of sleeping around, not encouraged to do so. They were taught
> >>about AIDS, STDs, and there was a video about date rape. They were told that
> >> IF they wanted to do it, at least they should be informed about how
> >> to protect themselves.
> > And they were encouraged to have relationships in high school,
> > evidently. THIS is something that many parents would legitimately
> > want to be able to opt out of, at least, if not remove from the
> > schools.
>
AIDS was already an issue when I was in HS, from 1979-1983.
We were taught mechanics, and consequences. While I was certainly
interested, I was interested beforehand anyway. We had a unit on
sex, reproduction, or some such every year from 5th to 12th grade.
We were not encouraged to have relationships. But we were also not
DIScouraged.
>
> >>Masturbation was NOT encouraged; it was discussed, very briefly, as a
> >> physiological matter, almost in passing. No encouragment.
> > To a teenage boy, acknowledgement/acceptance of the concept without
> > discouragement IS encouragement. Admittedly not to the extent that
> > was previously claimed, however.
> >
>
> Right. It's a fact of life. Frankly I'd rather have my kids masturbate
> than sleep around. Wouldn't you?
>
I certainly would. Then again, I do not share the thought that it
is bad anyway. We were taught that it existed, at least for boys.
Girls, of course, weren't supposed to be interested in it at all,
so masturbation for girls wasn't acknowledged.
>
> >>One of my sons
> >>remembers that there was some stigma attached to masturbation in history
> >>class when the Roman Empire was taught, and the "don't spill your seed"
> >>matter came up as a biblical injunction (and this in a secular high school).
> >>All three kids were given a demonstration of how condoms are used, not by school
> >>personnel but by reps from Planned Parenthood.
> > So? What difference does it make WHO demonstrated it?
> >
>
> Planned Parenthood people are trained on delivery of material to
> all age groups, including teenagers. Better them than a teacher
> the kids are familiar wiuth.
>
When I was in HS we had PP come in and do a demo for our youth group.
It was not "encouraging," it was realism for the group. And in the
intervening years I knew too many people who died for lack of that
information; when I was a youth group advisor I also had them come
in and talk to our group. But in both cases, special parental consent
was required.
--
Don Levey NOTE: spamtrapped address likely to change
Framingham, MA at any moment. Most recent post has best
address.
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
> In <7_RWb.13198$um1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> (big snip)
>
> >But again, let's try to keep on track. I don't have any problems with
> >*health class,* and I never really did. Jay, if you think it was a good
> >experience for your children, fine. My issue begins when and only when the
> >school tells me that it is *mandatory* for my child to be a participant in
> >these classes. This is what is happening in France. And this is what I was
> >objecting to.
>
> AFAIK it's not mandatory for children to attend public school, even in
> France. Thus nobody's forcing anybody's kids to do anything.
One of the comments that sparked this whole brouhaha was someone's
comment that if children in public schools in France could not (a)
wear religious dress (like kippot), (b) not opt out of classes for
religious reasons (like "health class"), or (c) skip school on
religious holidays, THEN clearly, Jewish kids should go to Jewish
schools, and perhaps a good effect of the ridiculous French law is
that more Jewish kids will attend specifically Jewish schools. Then,
someone else responded that that was "separatist" which is (according
to them) deplorable, and all kids should go to public school, and
therefore be forced into all of these things.
Then a discussion started on "what's so bad about being forced to go
to PE or health class", which is where we are.
> (although I'm still glad that here in the US kids are allowed to opt out
> for religious or other reasons)
As well they should. Public school is supposed to be for the public,
and if kids attending are forced to be taught stuff I or other members
of society find offensive, that is simply wrong. Note that many kids
may not be able to attend other schools because of financial
constraints (although one would hope that the Jewish community at
least would take care of its own, and it usually does to some extent).
-Shlomo-
cindys
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c0grgo$rpc$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> In <7_RWb.13198$um1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com> "cindys"
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> (big snip)
>
> >But again, let's try to keep on track. I don't have any problems with
> >*health class,* and I never really did. Jay, if you think it was a good
> >experience for your children, fine. My issue begins when and only when
the
> >school tells me that it is *mandatory* for my child to be a participant
in
> >these classes. This is what is happening in France. And this is what I
was
> >objecting to.
>
> AFAIK it's not mandatory for children to attend public school, even in
> France. Thus nobody's forcing anybody's kids to do anything.
But the children who *do* attend French public schools are forced to take
sex ed (unlike in American schools where attendance in the class is based on
the parents' discretion). Also, based on what another poster has stated, it
would seem that sex ed is mandatory even in some French Jewish schools (if
they receive any money from the French government).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Yisroel Markov
<jjl...@optonline.net> said:
>Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson) wrote:
>> "J.J. Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I spoke with all 3 of my children today. My daughter graduated high school 8
>>>years ago. My two sons graduated 3 years ago. Same school in Northern NJ.
>>>Suburban, upper middle class, very academically competitive, held in high
>>>regard, very close to NY City (15 miles).
>>>
>>>Phys ed: was coed. Girls could wear either T-shirts and shorts or sweat-
>>>suits (top, bottom, or both), or any combination of the above.
>>>No one was forced to wear anything "immodest".
>>
>>
>> Ever been a teenage boy? Girls in T-shirts & shorts combined with
>> physical exertion certainly IS immodest (though admittedly not by
>> desensitized western secular standards).
>>
>>
>
>How about girls in sweat suits? Do they turn religious boys into
>crazed sex monsters?
Why does it have to reach the monster stage? (I guess I'm closer,
age-wise, to the teenage stage, so I can empathize.)
This is moot anyway. Co-ed PE is only one of the many reasons O Jews
avoid public schools.
[snip]
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MLTWb.13224$um1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:c0grgo$rpc$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> > In <7_RWb.13198$um1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com> "cindys"
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > (big snip)
> But the children who *do* attend French public schools are forced to take
> sex ed (unlike in American schools where attendance in the class is based
on
> the parents' discretion). Also, based on what another poster has stated,
it
> would seem that sex ed is mandatory even in some French Jewish schools (if
> they receive any money from the French government).
BS"D
That's not exactly what I said. I was told by a Frenchman that religious
schools which take money from the government were required to follow all of
the laws associated with public school, which seemingly would include the
dress code, which is being passed into law. I don't know whether it is law
that there must be "human reproduction" classes in public schools, so I
don't know whether such religious schools would also be responsible for
teaching such things. Teaching such things may be something which is
considered socially responsible, but is not mandated by law even in public
schools, and if so, would not fall under the category of things which must
be done in private religious schools.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
cindys
"Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines" <gan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:efVWb.1961$WW3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:MLTWb.13224$um1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:c0grgo$rpc$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> > > In <7_RWb.13198$um1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com> "cindys"
> > <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> > >
> > > (big snip)
>
> > But the children who *do* attend French public schools are forced to
take
> > sex ed (unlike in American schools where attendance in the class is
based
> on
> > the parents' discretion). Also, based on what another poster has stated,
> it
> > would seem that sex ed is mandatory even in some French Jewish schools
(if
> > they receive any money from the French government).
>
> BS"D
>
> That's not exactly what I said. I was told by a Frenchman that religious
> schools which take money from the government were required to follow all
of
> the laws associated with public school, which seemingly would include the
> dress code, which is being passed into law.
Interesting. So IOW, kippahs will be asur (forbidden) at Jewish schools.
>I don't know whether it is law
> that there must be "human reproduction" classes in public schools, so I
> don't know whether such religious schools would also be responsible for
> teaching such things.
My post was based in part on what the French poster said as well. He
indicated that "human reproduction" is mandatory because it is part of
biology class. Understanding the basic biology of reproduction is, IMHO, a
far cry from what is being taught in *health class* in American public
schools. For all we/I know, *health class* as Americans understand it, may
not be part of the French public school curriculum at all. Obviously, I was
making my case based on the premise that American-style *health class* was
part of the French public school curriculum and that it would now be
mandatory for all students. Please note that in my follow-up post to the
French poster, I did include a disclaimer that if in fact by "human
reproduction," he really meant nothing beyond what could be found in a basic
biology textbook, I would not take issue with that.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>> AFAIK it's not mandatory for children to attend public school, even in
>> France. Thus nobody's forcing anybody's kids to do anything.
>One of the comments that sparked this whole brouhaha was someone's
>comment that if children in public schools in France could not (a)
>wear religious dress (like kippot), (b) not opt out of classes for
>religious reasons (like "health class"), or (c) skip school on
>religious holidays, THEN clearly, Jewish kids should go to Jewish
>schools, and perhaps a good effect of the ridiculous French law is
>that more Jewish kids will attend specifically Jewish schools. Then,
>someone else responded that that was "separatist" which is (according
>to them) deplorable, and all kids should go to public school, and
>therefore be forced into all of these things.
Understood, although "should go to public school and do these things"
isn't the same as saying "should be forced to," it's saying "should choose
to."
>Then a discussion started on "what's so bad about being forced to go
>to PE or health class", which is where we are.
Got it.
>> (although I'm still glad that here in the US kids are allowed to opt out
>> for religious or other reasons)
>As well they should. Public school is supposed to be for the public,
>and if kids attending are forced to be taught stuff I or other members
>of society find offensive, that is simply wrong. Note that many kids
>may not be able to attend other schools because of financial
>constraints (although one would hope that the Jewish community at
>least would take care of its own, and it usually does to some extent).
Wel-l-l-l-l, public school is supposed to teach things that are for the
"public good," whatever the public decides that might be, subject to the
constraints of the Constitution. So while anyone who finds these things
offensive ought to be able to opt out, I don't think that a minority
should be permitted to prevent the teaching of what the majority considers
to be in the public interest, once again subject to certain constraints
and within certain limits.
For example many people find the teaching of evolution to be offensive. I
say tough. People apparently find phys ed to be offensive - once again I
say tough -- it is in the public good for kids to get physical fitness,
and the courts have held that generally speaking "separate but equal"
isn't in the public good, so you'd have to make a strong non-religious
case to justify separating the sexes IMO.
Note that when I say "tough" I mean that the public schools IMO ought to
teach evolution, and gym, and sex ed, etc., etc, and I don't care if
people are offended by it as long as they are permitted to opt out.
Hard to say how much I'm willing to let them opt out on - co-ed gym
definitely, evolution maybe..., vaccinations definitely not.
--sg
> -Shlomo-
Steve Goldfarb
>But the children who *do* attend French public schools are forced to take
>sex ed (unlike in American schools where attendance in the class is based on
>the parents' discretion). Also, based on what another poster has stated, it
>would seem that sex ed is mandatory even in some French Jewish schools (if
>they receive any money from the French government).
But the kids aren't forced to attend public school, and the private
schools aren't forced to take money from the French gov't.
Regarding co-ed gym I agree with you, but with sex ed I'm not so sure. The
government has a compelling interest in preventing teen pregnancies and
STDs. I think that might override your desire to protect your child from
ideas you consider improper, since nothing would prevent you from
explaining to your child why you object to promiscuity, etc. Mixed gym
forces them to do something you disapprove of - sex ed just puts an idea
in their heads that you don't like. You can counter that with good
parenting.
cindys
> In <tign07n...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il> arg...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il
(Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)) writes:
[snippage for brevity]
>
> Wel-l-l-l-l, public school is supposed to teach things that are for the
> "public good," whatever the public decides that might be, subject to the
> constraints of the Constitution. So while anyone who finds these things
> offensive ought to be able to opt out, I don't think that a minority
> should be permitted to prevent the teaching of what the majority considers
> to be in the public interest, once again subject to certain constraints
> and within certain limits.
And nowhere did I state that these things shouldn't be taught, only that
people who find these things offensive should be able to opt out. The French
poster was implying that religious people were trying to force the public
school system to conform to our standards. Not at all. My point was that I
wouldn't want my children to be forced to participate in classes/activities
which are offensive and/or religiously forbidden.
>
> For example many people find the teaching of evolution to be offensive. I
> say tough. People apparently find phys ed to be offensive - once again I
> say tough -- it is in the public good for kids to get physical fitness,
> and the courts have held that generally speaking "separate but equal"
> isn't in the public good, so you'd have to make a strong non-religious
> case to justify separating the sexes IMO.
>
> Note that when I say "tough" I mean that the public schools IMO ought to
> teach evolution, and gym, and sex ed, etc., etc, and I don't care if
> people are offended by it as long as they are permitted to opt out.
And again, this entire thread has been about permission to opt out. It was
never about "the school should change its secular curriculum to conform to
religious standards."
As I stated previously, all of this is moot as far as my children are
concerned because they attend a Jewish school. And the main reason I send
them to a Jewish school is because I want them to learn torah, nothing about
avoiding *health class* at all. However, the French poster was attacking
Jews on two fronts. The ones who want to wear a kippah to public school,
dress modestly, or not come to school on Yom Kippur are being accused of
trying to impose Jewish religious standards on the French public school
system. When we say, okay we'll send our children to Jewish schools, we are
"communautares" (behaving like those nasty Muslim fundamentalists). As
usual, it's damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>> Wel-l-l-l-l, public school is supposed to teach things that are for the
>> "public good," whatever the public decides that might be, subject to the
>> constraints of the Constitution. So while anyone who finds these things
>> offensive ought to be able to opt out, I don't think that a minority
>> should be permitted to prevent the teaching of what the majority considers
>> to be in the public interest, once again subject to certain constraints
>> and within certain limits.
>And nowhere did I state that these things shouldn't be taught, only that
>people who find these things offensive should be able to opt out. The French
>poster was implying that religious people were trying to force the public
>school system to conform to our standards. Not at all. My point was that I
>wouldn't want my children to be forced to participate in classes/activities
>which are offensive and/or religiously forbidden.
I think the problem that the French are trying to address is that if a
significant number of people opt out, then the things aren't being taught.
It's not a big deal if one or two percent of the kids won't take gym class
- but what if it's 30%? Or 80%? Then although the government may have
developed certain national standards regarding what it thinks is important
for children to be taught, it's not happening.
And what if it's not gym class, but history class? Don't parents have a
right to opt out of history, or science, or home ec if they don't approve
of what's being taught? If not why not?
As I said I'm not comfortable with forcing people to do anything - I'm
glad I live here - but I do have some degree of empathy for what the
French are trying to do.
>>
>> For example many people find the teaching of evolution to be offensive. I
>> say tough. People apparently find phys ed to be offensive - once again I
>> say tough -- it is in the public good for kids to get physical fitness,
>> and the courts have held that generally speaking "separate but equal"
>> isn't in the public good, so you'd have to make a strong non-religious
>> case to justify separating the sexes IMO.
>>
>> Note that when I say "tough" I mean that the public schools IMO ought to
>> teach evolution, and gym, and sex ed, etc., etc, and I don't care if
>> people are offended by it as long as they are permitted to opt out.
>And again, this entire thread has been about permission to opt out. It was
>never about "the school should change its secular curriculum to conform to
>religious standards."
But as I said - if you're in a Muslim neighborhood in France, and say 80%
of the students have chosen to opt out, then the school has inded been
forced to change its secular curriculum to conform to religious standards.
>As I stated previously, all of this is moot as far as my children are
>concerned because they attend a Jewish school. And the main reason I send
>them to a Jewish school is because I want them to learn torah, nothing about
>avoiding *health class* at all. However, the French poster was attacking
>Jews on two fronts. The ones who want to wear a kippah to public school,
>dress modestly, or not come to school on Yom Kippur are being accused of
>trying to impose Jewish religious standards on the French public school
>system. When we say, okay we'll send our children to Jewish schools, we are
>"communautares" (behaving like those nasty Muslim fundamentalists). As
>usual, it's damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
Only if you play by their rules. Jews who choose to keep separate from the
mainstream French life are indeed being "commuautares" if that means what
we think it means. So what? The French see assimilation into the
mainstream culture as a value. That's their right, isn't it? If we don't
see it as a value, and in fact see it as a negative, that's our right too,
but how can you criticize them for being consistent with their own values?
There's nothing wrong with that -- they think assimilation is good, so
they think it's wrong for people to not wish to assimilate. That's their
opinion. So?
--sg
Don Levey
> "Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines" <gan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:efVWb.1961$WW3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > BS"D
> >
> > That's not exactly what I said. I was told by a Frenchman that religious
> > schools which take money from the government were required to follow all
> of
> > the laws associated with public school, which seemingly would include the
> > dress code, which is being passed into law.
>
> Interesting. So IOW, kippahs will be asur (forbidden) at Jewish schools.
>
Apparently, only those who chose to accept government money.
-Don
Z
<henry....@virgin.net> writes
that figures were researched and published of membership / attendance
of religious institutions in the UK. I heard this on the radio and as I
was driving at the time I heard the radio news article (Radio 4) I
didn't note down the figures. IIRC someone followed up by posting the
figures.
Gut Shabbos und gut woche.
--
Z
Remove all Zeds in e-mail address to reply.
Harry Weiss
> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
> news:c0eu5m$162ri0$1...@ID-113975.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:20:38 +0000 (UTC), J. J. Levin
> <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > : This is new? I thought the movie only spoke Latin and Aramaic, in
> > : order to be more "authentic", and that there would be NO subtitles
> ??
> >
> > Actually, I was told by R' Dr David Berger that for some unfathomable
> > reason, the Romans will be speaking Greek???
> >
> The discussion of the movie I heard on PBS yesterday said that _if_ the
> movie were really accurate, the Roman soldiers _ought to_ be speaking
> Greek. Apparently, it was the most commonly used language by their
> troops in the region. I'm still hoping that when and if it's released,
> the movie turns into a total flop.
> Eliyahu
Unfortunately I am reading in the papers here about various churches bying
big blocks of tickets and taking everyone to the film.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
cindys
[snippage for brevity]
>
>
> >As I stated previously, all of this is moot as far as my children are
> >concerned because they attend a Jewish school. And the main reason I send
> >them to a Jewish school is because I want them to learn torah, nothing
about
> >avoiding *health class* at all. However, the French poster was attacking
> >Jews on two fronts. The ones who want to wear a kippah to public school,
> >dress modestly, or not come to school on Yom Kippur are being accused of
> >trying to impose Jewish religious standards on the French public school
> >system. When we say, okay we'll send our children to Jewish schools, we
are
> >"communautares" (behaving like those nasty Muslim fundamentalists). As
> >usual, it's damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
>
> Only if you play by their rules. Jews who choose to keep separate from the
> mainstream French life are indeed being "commuautares" if that means what
> we think it means. So what? The French see assimilation into the
> mainstream culture as a value. That's their right, isn't it? If we don't
> see it as a value, and in fact see it as a negative, that's our right too,
> but how can you criticize them for being consistent with their own values?
> There's nothing wrong with that -- they think assimilation is good, so
> they think it's wrong for people to not wish to assimilate. That's their
> opinion. So?
---------
Yes, the French certainly are entitled to their opinion that it is a
positive that Jews should all assimilate. And if the political climate
should change, and chas v'shalom there should be another Holocaust, in the
eyes of the French, would these assimilated Frenchmen continue to be
regarded as "Frenchmen" or would they go back to being alien Jews?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>> Only if you play by their rules. Jews who choose to keep separate from the
>> mainstream French life are indeed being "commuautares" if that means what
>> we think it means. So what? The French see assimilation into the
>> mainstream culture as a value. That's their right, isn't it? If we don't
>> see it as a value, and in fact see it as a negative, that's our right too,
>> but how can you criticize them for being consistent with their own values?
>> There's nothing wrong with that -- they think assimilation is good, so
>> they think it's wrong for people to not wish to assimilate. That's their
>> opinion. So?
>---------
>Yes, the French certainly are entitled to their opinion that it is a
>positive that Jews should all assimilate. And if the political climate
>should change, and chas v'shalom there should be another Holocaust, in the
>eyes of the French, would these assimilated Frenchmen continue to be
>regarded as "Frenchmen" or would they go back to being alien Jews?
Once again - so?
We already stipulated that we Jews think assimilation is bad. So what is
your comment adding?
They seem to think that they can create a homogenous, secular culture
speaking only an Officially Approved language. I don't think it'll work -
but I'm not French, it's none of my business, really. But if assimilation
is a value, to them, then why shouldn't they support that value in their
public schools?
--sg
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
--
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> Yes, the French certainly are entitled to their opinion that it is a
> positive that Jews should all assimilate. And if the political climate
> should change, and chas v'shalom there should be another Holocaust, in the
> eyes of the French, would these assimilated Frenchmen continue to be
> regarded as "Frenchmen" or would they go back to being alien Jews?
Do you really have to ask? "Paris is our Jerusalem"??
:-)BB!!
-Shlomo-
Harry Weiss
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:c0grgo$rpc$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> > In <7_RWb.13198$um1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com> "cindys"
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > (big snip)
> >
> > >But again, let's try to keep on track. I don't have any problems with
> > >*health class,* and I never really did. Jay, if you think it was a good
> > >experience for your children, fine. My issue begins when and only when
> the
> > >school tells me that it is *mandatory* for my child to be a participant
> in
> > >these classes. This is what is happening in France. And this is what I
> was
> > >objecting to.
> >
> > AFAIK it's not mandatory for children to attend public school, even in
> > France. Thus nobody's forcing anybody's kids to do anything.
> ------------
> But the children who *do* attend French public schools are forced to take
> sex ed (unlike in American schools where attendance in the class is based on
> the parents' discretion). Also, based on what another poster has stated, it
I have to agree with Steve here. The Government has to decide what it the
public good. What if the Moslems demand that all history, geography
texts, globes etc. remove reference to teh Zionist entity
or they demand that holocaust revisionism be given equal time.
There are necessary evils involved with attending public school in a non
Jewish country.
> would seem that sex ed is mandatory even in some French Jewish schools (if
> they receive any money from the French government).
Another good argument for not mixing church and state in a secular
country.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
> >
> > (although I'm still glad that here in the US kids are allowed to opt out
> > for religious or other reasons)
> >
> > --sg
> >
> > >Best regards,
> > >---Cindy S.
> >
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Buy my boat!
> > http://www.oscodagroup.com/boat
> >
Henry Goodman
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JEMWb.56189$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Are all American state schools co-ed? When I was at school a looong time ago
nearly all schools in Britain were single-sex. Since then there has been an
increasing spread of co-ed schools but the best schools are still single-sex. I
don't think the co-ed schools have mixed classes for PE but I may be wrong.
BlackMonk
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2004Feb1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> Oy Cindy, if the worst about secular sex education is the assumption
> that they are casually dating it wouldn't be that bad. It's the
> assumption tha they are casually "sleeping around" and thus they need
> to sell condoms in the school cafeteria that really shows how much
> we've fallen.
>
Do you know of any school that actually does this? I've worked at a few and
none of them sold condoms. In fact, I suspect they'd be in a lot of trouble
if they did.
BlackMonk
"Andy Katz" <amk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f9mn20t7dsjplbdmt...@4ax.com...
> Sure, Moshe. Only then it would have been an opera ... without the
> signing;--)
An opera for the deaf?
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> writes:
No, *not* for the deaf - "withOUT the signing", n'est pas?
-Shlomo-
cindys
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:c0luq9$sb2$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>
> Are all American state schools co-ed?
To the best of my knowledge, they are.
>When I was at school a looong time ago
> nearly all schools in Britain were single-sex.
I don't know that there have ever been single-sex public schools in the
U.S., at least not in this century - (and that comment was not intended to
be derogatory in any way).
>Since then there has been an
> increasing spread of co-ed schools but the best schools are still
single-sex. I
> don't think the co-ed schools have mixed classes for PE but I may be
wrong.
>
Some schools have coed classes for PE. Others don't.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
> --
Harry Weiss
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:c0luq9$sb2$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> >
> > Are all American state schools co-ed?
> To the best of my knowledge, they are.
There used to be a handful of single sex schools in NY (Stuveasant, boys
High) I have no idea if they still exist as single sex.
> >When I was at school a looong time ago
> > nearly all schools in Britain were single-sex.
> I don't know that there have ever been single-sex public schools in the
> U.S., at least not in this century - (and that comment was not intended to
> be derogatory in any way).
SEe above
> >Since then there has been an
> > increasing spread of co-ed schools but the best schools are still
> single-sex. I
> > don't think the co-ed schools have mixed classes for PE but I may be
> wrong.
> >
> Some schools have coed classes for PE. Others don't.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
> > --
> > Henry Goodman
> > henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
> >
Harry Weiss
I don't know about selling, but I know that the organzation I work for
provides condoms to give out in schools.
Eliyahu Rooff
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:c0mj3q$1801uk$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
keep them in the school nurse's office, generally available for the
asking. And, in most cases, there isn't that much of a connection
between condoms and sex education classes, as the latter are usually
offered in the 6th and 8th or 9th grades; not at high school, while it's
usually high schools that have condoms available.
There's also no connection between sex education and any "assumptions"
about dating or casually sleeping around. With or without sex education,
with or without our approval, kids are having sex. I don't believe
you'll find any studies showing a correlation between sex education and
increased sexual behavior. The differences will show in the rates of
transmission of STDs and incidence of pregnancy.
I do remember from high school that a lot of guys loved to go out with
girls who hadn't had the sex education classes. They'd believe just
about anything they were told about sex and pregnancy. Ignorance may,
indeed, be bliss, but the bliss disappears when it comes into contact
with real life.
Eliyahu
Andy Katz
Or spellchecking...:-(
Andy Katz
____________________________________________
"There's more to being a Jew than jewelry!"
Charlotte York, "Sex & The City"
The Simpsons
a...@earthlink.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
Susan Cohen
I think Cindy's point is that they will never practice what they preach.
But I could be wrong.
Susan
cindys
>
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:c0mj3q$1801uk$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
> > news:2004Feb1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> > > "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> > > Oy Cindy, if the worst about secular sex education is the assumption
> > > that they are casually dating it wouldn't be that bad. It's the
> > > assumption tha they are casually "sleeping around" and thus they
> need
> > > to sell condoms in the school cafeteria that really shows how much
> > > we've fallen.
> > >
> >
> > Do you know of any school that actually does this? I've worked at a
> few and
> > none of them sold condoms. In fact, I suspect they'd be in a lot of
> trouble
> > if they did.
> >
> To the best of my knowledge, those schools where condoms are available
> keep them in the school nurse's office, generally available for the
> asking. And, in most cases, there isn't that much of a connection
> between condoms and sex education classes, as the latter are usually
> offered in the 6th and 8th or 9th grades; not at high school, while it's
> usually high schools that have condoms available.
When I was in school, sex education was in 5th grade and 6th grade to teach
children what would happen to their bodies as they reached puberty but 10th
grade to teach about STDs, contraceptives, and drugs.
>
> There's also no connection between sex education and any "assumptions"
> about dating or casually sleeping around.
And this is where I respectfully disagree. I don't see how you can dispute
that sex education begins with the assumption that boys and girls are
dating. Children who are neither dating nor sleeping around don't need sex
education. (Unless you want to begin with the premise that the purpose of
sex education is to prepare the children for marriage.) I am not objecting
to sex education on general grounds, only to a situation where opting out is
not an option. For me personally, all of this is moot, as IYH, my sons will
attend yeshiva where they will be asked to sign a contract that they will
not date girls, period. Attendance at a co-ed party is sufficient reason to
expel a boy from a yeshiva. Even casual conversation between boys and girls
is discouraged. If they were to attend public school, my personal objection
to the sex ed would not be that they would learn about condoms, but rather,
that they would learn about relationships and *acceptable* dating behavior
from secular, gentile teachers, who are not familiar with halacha or
traditions, etc and are operating under the assumption that dating, dances,
coed parties, having a girlfriend, etc are a normal part of growing up for
all teenage boys. The focus of sex education in the Orthodox world is that
marriage is the ultimate expression of holiness and spirituality between two
people, the purpose of dating is to find a spouse, and unmarried couples on
a date are not allowed to touch each other or to be alone together. To the
best of my knowledge (and someone will correct me if I am wrong), STDs and
unmarried pregnancies are not exactly a rampant problem in the frummie
community (and please note, I am not saying it never happens, only that it
is extremely rare).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:DNDXb.23172$1S1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Correct. As long as it suits their purpose, they pay a lot of lip service to
the notion that everyone should be a "universaliste" (i.e., assimilated),
but at the end of the day, a "Frenchman" is still a "Frenchman" and a Jew is
still a Jew.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Joseph Hertzlinger
<lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I would disagree with this. My employer, who is extremely active in
> his church, has lamented the fact that those folks in Europe who
> identify themselves as Xtian usually mean it more in a cultural than
> religious sense,
Doesn't that mean the only thing left of Christianity is
anti-semitism?
Joseph Hertzlinger
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The motivation behind my post is that I had just realized that I was
> thinking overly provincially. The threat in the US is IMHO minimal.
> However, in Europe, antisemitism is on the rise already. The last
> thing Jews there need is another excuse to ratchet it up a notch.
The really big danger is that they might decide to be anti-Roman and
identify the U.S. with Rome.
BlackMonk
>
> "CW" <ch...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:gFdWb.7126$rv1.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > I do not know if physical education classes are an issue if the sexes
are
> > separated. Sex education, however, devoid of religious content, is just
> > instruction in biology and mechanics. I can see how many people, not
> just
> > OJ's, would look askance about that.
> ------------
> No, it's not. As a product of a public school sex education (and my
> experience predates the exercise of putting condoms on bananas), in
addition
> to the biology and mechanics, the public school sex education is all about
> "relationships" and begins with the premise that teenage boys and girls
will
> be going out on dates. (Right there, there is a conflict with traditional
> Jewish practice, where dating happens only when one is ready to marry and
is
> for the purpose of finding a suitable mate.) When I had public school sex
> education, I came away with the following:
>
> 1. Don't engage in casual sex. Wait until you are involved in a serious
> relationship (not necessarily marriage).
And here's where you come in. Your part is to explain why they should wait
until marriage.
> 2. Masturbation strongly encouraged. Myths about going blind etc.
debunked.
I don't remember if it was even mentioned when I was in school. I know it
wasn't encouraged. Maybe there was a brief debunking of the myths, which I'd
think would be something Judaism would approve of. Isn't part of the reason
Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden that Eve added to God's
prohibition?
> 3. Teenagers will invariably be engaging in sex (despite point #1 above,
> which teacher makes it clear that he/she felt compelled to say it, but
> tacitly understood by both teacher and students know that no one really
> takes point #1 seriously).
Sounds like you had a bad teacher, but the fact is that some teenagers WILL
engage in sex, and it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend otherwise.
> 3. A discussion of human reproduction with focus on the fact that no one
> ever got pregnant from types of sexual activity which don't involve
> intercourse (other than "heavy petting" - depending on what that involves,
> etc.) Message: To avoid pregnancy, avoid actual intercourse, but full
steam
> ahead with everything else.
Is this better than keeping teenagers ignorant and teaching them myths are
true?
> 4. A lengthy discussion of every form of contraception known to mankind
and
> how it works. Samples sent around the classroom. (This is the part where
> children now practice with the condom and the banana.)
Again, some teenagers will engage in sex. Are they better off not knowing
about contraception?
> 5. A lengthy discussion of every STD known to mankind, what are the
> symptoms, how to avoid it, etc.
Useful information, to be sure.
> 6. When I was in school, there were no discussions of sexuality between
> members of the same sex, but I would suspect there are now.
Ignorance leads to prejudice.
> 7. Rape/date rape also discussed. Emphasized to boys that when the girl
> says no, she means no. (I do not object to point #7, except that hopefully
> unmarried O Jews would not be alone together in the first place, thus
> eliminating the potential for this scenario in the first place).
>
Still, it doesn't hurt to know that other people might be in this kind of
situation and that it isn't the girl's fault.
Henry Goodman
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IYBXb.57712$n62....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:c0luq9$sb2$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> >
> > Are all American state schools co-ed?
>
> To the best of my knowledge, they are.
>
> >When I was at school a looong time ago
> > nearly all schools in Britain were single-sex.
>
> I don't know that there have ever been single-sex public schools in the
> U.S., at least not in this century - (and that comment was not intended to
> be derogatory in any way).
>
Can you go back a bit further? I assume you were at school in the last century
:-)
Christopher Jones
seeing it try to emulate some of the teachings of Jesus Christ, then at the
very least, they will be more peaceful regardless of the differences. That
is, if they truly believe in the teachings of Jesus. With the condition of
the world being what it is, I would hope lots of people see it, and try to
live peacefully one with another, without regard to ones race or religion.
Sincerely,
Chris Jones
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c0j7j9$m02$1...@reader2.panix.com...
cindys
My part is to ensure that my children will attend Jewish schools where they
will not be exposed to the secular approach to relationships in the first
place, not to try to undo the damage once it has been done. My children's
*sex education* will come from me and/or their rebbes (not secular, gentile
teachers who do not share our halacha or tradition).
>
> > 2. Masturbation strongly encouraged. Myths about going blind etc.
> debunked.
>
> I don't remember if it was even mentioned when I was in school. I know it
> wasn't encouraged. Maybe there was a brief debunking of the myths, which
I'd
> think would be something Judaism would approve of.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but why would Judaism approve of tacit
endorsement of an activity which the torah explicitly forbids? (i.e. since
you won't *go blind,* the activity is okay).
>Isn't part of the reason
> Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden that Eve added to God's
> prohibition?
I'm not sure about what you mean here that Eve *added to God's prohibition,*
and I don't see the connection between Adam/Eve and masturbation.
>
> > 3. Teenagers will invariably be engaging in sex (despite point #1 above,
> > which teacher makes it clear that he/she felt compelled to say it, but
> > tacitly understood by both teacher and students know that no one really
> > takes point #1 seriously).
>
> Sounds like you had a bad teacher
I had a teacher who was following the New York State curriculum. Obviously,
if the teacher and the students took seriously that no one was going to be
engaging in premarital sex, there would be no need for the class at all.
> but the fact is that some teenagers WILL
> engage in sex, and it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend otherwise.
I don't know what are the current statistics for teenagers who have engaged
in sex, but I believe the number is higher than 50%. I would be willing to
bet the number of individuals who engage in premarital is at least 90%. I
don't think the teacher was incorrect to assume that his/her advice to "wait
until marriage" was going to be ignored and dismissed. As I stated, if most
people waited until marriage, there would be no need for the class in the
first place.
>
> > 3. A discussion of human reproduction with focus on the fact that no one
> > ever got pregnant from types of sexual activity which don't involve
> > intercourse (other than "heavy petting" - depending on what that
involves,
> > etc.) Message: To avoid pregnancy, avoid actual intercourse, but full
> steam
> > ahead with everything else.
>
> Is this better than keeping teenagers ignorant and teaching them myths are
> true?
Thank you for admitting that these kinds of activities are not being
discouraged.
>
> > 4. A lengthy discussion of every form of contraception known to mankind
> and
> > how it works. Samples sent around the classroom. (This is the part where
> > children now practice with the condom and the banana.)
>
> Again, some teenagers will engage in sex. Are they better off not knowing
> about contraception?
This thread is not to argue that sex education is a bad thing for the
secular world. On the contrary, I believe it is a good thing. But the
operative word here is "secular." While there may be a handful of frum O
kids who will engage in sex, the vast majority will not. Discussions of STDs
and contraceptives are inappropriate for O teenagers who do not touch, date,
talk to members of the opposite sex. The reason I outlined the curriculum
from my public school sex education class was to illustrate why such a
curriculum is inappropriate for *frum* kids (not to make the point that it
was *bad* in general). As I have stated repeatedly in this thread: For the
secular world, I believe sex education is a good thing. My only issue would
be if the class were government mandated such that O Jews (or others who
object to the material) were not permitted to opt their children out of the
class. Of course, I also acknowledge that *sex education* is only one of
many reasons that most religious Jews opt out of the public school system in
the first place.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Eliyahu Rooff
Actually, this is the premise behind it. There's no presumption needed
that they're dating or are going to date; only that they're likely to
have sex at some time in the future unless they become nuns or priests.
Why should we presume that all subject material in schools is presented
with the idea that it'll be used immediately? For that matter, why
should we treat the mechanics of reproduction any differently than the
mechanics of digestion or any other physiological process? It's
something with a far more immediate connection to daily life than, say,
the function of the pancreas or gall bladder, in that teenage boys will
have nocturnal emissions and teenage girls will menstruate, and both
need to deal with those facts when they encounter them. (By contrast,
the vast majority of them could function quite well without even knowing
that they had a gall bladder or pancreas, both of which work without any
interference on our part and without producing anything that we can
see.)
I am not objecting
> to sex education on general grounds, only to a situation where opting
out is
> not an option.
I'm not sure how much of it should be on an "opt out" basis. Certainly
not the anatomy and physiology aspects. Those, in fact, should be taught
in the same science classes where students learn about digestion, blood
circulation, and every other physiological process of the body.
Eliyahu
Eliyahu Rooff
"Christopher Jones" <CHRISTOP...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:102qn3m...@corp.supernews.com...
> Why in the world would you want the movie to be a flop? If the people
> seeing it try to emulate some of the teachings of Jesus Christ, then
at the
> very least, they will be more peaceful regardless of the differences.
That
> is, if they truly believe in the teachings of Jesus. With the
condition of
> the world being what it is, I would hope lots of people see it, and
try to
> live peacefully one with another, without regard to ones race or
religion.
>
(and to people of other faiths) than Xtianity. There's no way to
separate him from the overt anti-Semitism of the synoptic gospels or
Pauline epistles, or from the hatred for Jews engendered by his
followers over the past two millennia. If you want to promote peaceful
coexistance through a religion outside of Judaism, try pushing Buddhism.
The Holocaust, the crusades, the expulsion of Jews throughout Europe,
all were done under the auspices of Xtianity. Buddhists actually believe
in "live and let live," and don't need to force everyone else to
convert.
In the case of this movie, it's not even good history. Quick example:
Gibson wants to have people believe that Pilate was a lapdog to the high
priest, eager and desperate to do his bidding, whereas the reality was
the Pilate had the power to "hire and fire" the high priest at that time
and had never hesitated to use harsh and violent methods to maintain
control over those under him. Any time there's a conflict between
historic reality and the fables of the gospels, Gibson will opt for the
latter.
Bottom line: the world doesn't need this movie, and everyone would be
better off without it.
Eliyahu