You can almost bet that when an organization uses the word "family" or "pro-family" they are really about hating gay members of our society.

In Chicago, public schools CEO Arne Duncan, has proposed twenty new programs and among them a new school, the Social Justice High School, a place "to address the needs of the underserved population of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth and their allies."

Why is this school necessary? Because of the increasing bigotry that this population of students must face. The statics indicate:

• 35% of Illinois students report that sexual orientation is the most common reason students are bullied or harassed.
• 34% of Illinois students report that gender identity is the most common reason students are bullied or harassed.
• 74% of Illinois students report hearing homophobic remarks such as “*** got” or “dy ke” from other students in school
• 83%  of Illinois students report hearing homophobic remarks such as “that’s so gay”or “you’re so gay” from other students in school
• 48% of Illinois students report that teachers and other school staff rarely intervene when they hear homophobic language
• Students who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual are three times more likely than their non-gay peers to report missing school because they feel unsafe (33% vs. 11%)
• Students who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual are almost two times more likely than their non-gay peers to report being in a physical fight at school (32% vs. 17%)
• Students identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual are nearly twice as likely as their non-gay peers to report suffering from depression (52% vs. 31%).
• Students identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual are almost three times more likely than their non-gay peers to report attempting suicide (32% vs. 11%)

Of course, this has riled up the religious right. Laurie Higgins, of the Illinois "Family" Institute, argues

"A high school that is dedicated to or centrally focused on homosexuality necessarily requires that public educators have come to some prior conclusions about the nature and morality of homosexuality..."

Prior conclusions? Which are those? That gays, lesbians, and others should be treated fairly and receive a decent education free from harassment? No, the conclusion that Higgins wants lawmakers and school officials to make is one based on the Bible's morality. You know, the same book that not only condemns eating shell fish and mixing fabrics, but also advocates for the stoning of homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient children, and for collecting sticks on the sabbath.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (is it possible to be anymore preposterous!), in turn, argues

"The taxpayers -- whether they're Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims -- they will be funding [this] pro-homosexual indoctrination school for so-called 'gay' youth"

LaBarbera is making a special plead on religious grounds, as if all Christians, Jews and Muslims are monolithic in their beliefs - which they are evidently not. And many of these Christians, Jews and Muslims have many gay and lesbian adherents. However, for the sake of argument, let's contended that these religious groups are indeed monolithic and this is a matter of taxpayer rights.

If it's simply a matter of a tax-payer rights, then our taxpaying gays and lesbians - many of whom are religious, citizens should not be in the business of paying for "straight-schools" and creating so-called "straight-youth." And let's expand that. Should white taxpayers be in the business of educating black students? 

Indoctrination is the business of religion and LaBarbera fails to acknowledge this in his argument that the students who would be attending this school are already self-identified gay or otherwise. It seems that LaBarbera believes that Chicago school system is creating a "gay" factory.

Patently ridiculous.

Apparently, if your a bigot whose surety is alleged to be God's will, no argument in defense of such a worldview is truculent, or incoherent enough to make you reconsider your bigotry.

Harris and LaBarbera simply want to block any opportunity for gays and lesbians to achieve any semblance of equality in our society. They actively demand that these people be discriminated and blacklisted as unequals and as second class citizens. I have to wonder why stop at education? Why stop at marriage? Why stop at life? Why not actively pursue death sentences for homosexuality?

The Religious Right hates the family in all its splendid diversity. They hate your gay son. They hate your gay daughter. They hate your gay mother or father. They hate your gay friends and colleagues. And when called on it, they dress it up in Jesus' love. What a hollow, conditional love that is.

Here's a thought. If bigots like Harris and LaBarbera would stop encouraging religious intolerance that breeds the subsequent intolerance against homosexuality in our society, perhaps schools like the Social Justice High school would be unnecessary. Instead, they crusade in their full religious bigotry like they are engaged in some kind of Holy War. (And by their worldview, it is.)

Leaving aside religious intolerance, there are other criticisms of a school like the Social Justice High School. Hantas Farmer, a trans-gendered citizen, argues that

"Have any of you considered that this is nothing but de facto segregation? I support you in principle. School should be safe for everyone. But I'm not sure segregation is the way forward"

In my opinion, we've already seen a fracturing of the public school system with voucher programs that may be used for either religious or secular private schools. New York and Milwaukee already have similar schools.

I do not see the harm with one more school. A school like this will help to educate otherwise intelligent members of our society to become productive members so they are not as likely to exist off of government welfare in the future.

In my ninth grade math class, I was scolded for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. My teacher had asked me if I was not proud of my country. I wanted to ask him in what context, but felt the peer pressure to just shut up. To tell you the truth, I wasn't very proud of my country. Iran-Contra broke around this time, and I was disappointed by Reagan and this was a simple, yet quiet way to protest. Despite all that, I have always felt uncomfortable performing this bit of patriotic pageantry in any mood.

But why the anxiety you might ask? Don't true, patriotic Americans enjoy this bit of public affirmation to their country? Do I hate America? Am I a Communist? A socialist? An Islamo-Fascist? None of those reasons, I assure you. It is because I am an American that I object to this ritual that only Communists and Goosesteppers do. I also have to ask myself, is our pledge any different than when Saudi's pledge to their flag? When Saudis pledge, they make an oath to God. Essentially, there is absolutely no difference in this practice and intent.

The Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, and published to commemorate the 400 year anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. The companion address, by Bellamy, is full of exhalations in the discovery of the country, to America, to God, and to the public school system. While I can agree with some of the sentiments of the original 1892 wording was meant to express by Bellamy and agree with Bellamy that the public school is foundational to a free society, I do not agree with the forced, recital of the Pledge as a vehicle to teach our children what the values that the Pledge supposedly represents. In fact, it is very much against "justice and liberty" that this compulsory oath violates. The greatest accomplishment of our secular democracy is the freedom from compulsory belief, whether these beliefs are secular, religious, or otherwise. The Pledge, as it is currently configured, is a religious test. Article 6 expressly forbids any religious oath as a requirement to hold office and if we apply the spirit of Article 6, the Pledge and the phrase "under God" is the endorsement of the Christian (mainly Protestant) belief in God. (Spend a moment and read the Flag Code. Congress Findings is nothing but a long list of religious justification.) Furthermore, nowhere is the First Commandment of the Decalogue enumerated within the Constitution.

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the Pledge was an "unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism" affirming the significance of the phrase "under God". This prompted a 2004 Supreme Court showdown, that instead of ruling on the constitutionality of "under God", took the red-herring and dismissed this case on procedural grounds. I do recall listening to extended debate on NPR between Justices Renquist and Thomas. If I recall correctly, it was Renquist that correctly observed that the word God was not just an explicit historical reference as the arguments of the day had asserted. Renquist (again, if I recall correctly) effectively pointed out that the argument that he and Thomas were presently engaged in over the meaning of the word God was demonstration enough that the word God can not be removed from its theological, religious context. (In other words, to change the context of the word God renders such a word meaningless.) As personally gratifying listening to that exchange, I was fully disappointed that such sublime reasoning was only to be abandoned for the coward's way out. Regardless, this exchange between Renquist and Thomas positively affirmed the appellate court's ruling.

Being a godless liberal, you would probably expect this opinion of me I am sure. A perfectly reasonable, knee-jerk, defensive reaction should summon the most invective language against me. Very well. But when you do, consider the fact that in the 40's it was the Jehovah Witness that objected to the Pledge as violating their First Amendment Rights. They are hardly atheists. Also consider the analysis of senior editor at the Cato Institute, Gene Healy, who is no liberal himself. Healy had this to say about (Republican) defenders of the Pledge:

"Why do so many conservatives who, by and large, exalt the individual and the family above the state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the government? Why do Christian conservatives say it's important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives support the Pledge at all, with or without "under God"?"

In the spirit of James Madison "Memorial" speech, let's abolish the Pledge. Just as Madison stated that "the Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate." So too should the convictions and conscience of every American decide how best to exercise their patriotism.

Therefore in respecting the individual over the state, let's abolish this tradition. Instead, let our democratic principles revolve not around the parroting of words, but in our actions.

____________________

(It should be pointed out that there is no law, unless in uniform, that Americans must pledge. But it is a tradition that nonetheless continues in our schools. Effectively, the recital of the Pledge becomes compulsory. )