Parents sue Alameda schools over gay-issues curriculum

Because religion teaches these Christo-Fascist moral monsters that its main tenet is killing LGBT/T folks by stoning.  One of the main Christo-Fascist arguments against anti-bullying and hate crimes laws is that they violate their religious freedom.

Freedom is not the freedom to oppress others.  Although that is the Ayn Rand/John Galt model.

Yesterday Alternet ran an article describing Ayn Rand’s facination with a sociopathic murderer and how she saw him as the perfect model.

So what, and who, was Ayn Rand for and against? The best way to get to the bottom of it is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten by Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation — Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street — on him.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,” she wrote, gushing that Hickman had “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.'”

This echoes almost word for word Rand’s later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”

One may argue that this is a perversion of Christianity and yet historically Christianity along with Islam has spread at the point of a sword leaving millions upon millions of bodies in its wake.
How perfectly sociopathic to totally disregard the pain and suffering this ideology of hate causes LGBT/T people.

Dec. 8 vote to readopt Lesson 9 at elementary level violated Brown Act, plaintiffs argue.

By Michele Ellson

Posted: 02/25/2010 03:32:36 PM PST

Updated: 02/25/2010 04:43:41 PM PST
// <![CDATA[

// <![CDATA[
// 0){
document.getElementById(‘articleViewerGroup’).style.width = requestedWidth + “px”;
document.getElementById(‘articleViewerGroup’).style.margin = “0px 0px 10px 10px”;
// ]]>A pair of Alameda parents is suing the school district and school board, claiming the board violated the Brown Act by voting to readopt the anti-gay bullying Lesson 9 and to adopt accompanying literature that they said wasn’t included in the staff’s original recommendation.

Kerry Cook and Serena Dietrich filed a suit Feb. 18 in Alameda County Superior Court that seeks to nullify the school board’s Dec. 8 vote to readopt Lesson 9 for Alameda’s elementary schools until a replacement curriculum is approved and to adopt a Links to Literature guide.

Continue reading at:

7 Responses to “Parents sue Alameda schools over gay-issues curriculum”

  1. Anonymous-T-Girl Says:


    i wonder what kind of response the ‘righteous’ parents would have if their house was picketed with large, graphic pictures of hate crime victims taken just after the assault.

    Captioned with phrases, like Your God’s ‘Love’ At Work.

    • Suzan Says:

      I can’t understand how people who are such strong believers in law and order, the idea of zero tolerance of anything that might offend their sensibilities can turn around act like bullying is okay.

      How they can take the position that it is perfectly okay for children who aren’t stereotypical heterosexual masculine boys and feminine girls to have their education destroyed by the abuse they are forced to take from bullies.

      Then cite religion as justification.

      BTW welcome back.

  2. Anonymous-T-Girl Says:

    My fight against religion is a completely divorced affair from trans politics.

    One i’ve been waging long before transition, and will be waging long after.

    • Suzan Says:

      Being a transkid raised in the Catholic Church put me in conflict with religion and raised the initial doubts.

      But my atheism goes deeper than just that. I see religion as superstition based oppression of women and the poor. I see it as an enemy of art, science and progress.

  3. tinagrrl Says:

    I’ve been feeling a bit grumpy lately.

    I guess my “BS Meter” (not my “HBS” meter) is is beginnng to register more than half — because — this statement has just been hanging there, ” My fight against religion is a completely divorced affair from trans politics.”

    It seems to make perfect sense — right? One thing has nothing to do with the other — right?

    But, but, but, but, how can you agree with ANYTHING Suzan or I say? Aren’t we just some sort of “clowns”? Isn’t everything either of us say “tainted” with the curse of “heresy”?

    I guess I just don’t understand the “subtlety” of personal attacks which attempt to negate EVERYTHING ever said by a person, along with statements that infer everything we’ve said is a lie — but agreeing with specific statements about religion.

    Couldn’t these also be part of some pro-transgender plot — just as WBT is not now, nor ever has been, among the first folks to deny the “transgender umbrella” concept — according to the same folks who promote the personal attacks?

    Oh well, I guess —- most of the attacks are just self aggrandizement, and BS.

  4. Anonymous-T-Girl Says:

    What in the hell *are* you babbling about?

    Sorry to disappoint you, but i have no idea who you even are. ‘Clowns’? ‘Tainted’? ‘Heresy’? ‘Transgender plot’?

    What a weird attempt to insert yourself somewhere you weren’t addressed in any way. Or attempt to troll. Who knows. Who cares.

    Either way, it was an A and B conversation. C your way right the fuck out of it.

  5. tinagrrl Says:

    Well, gee-whiz, golly-gosh, aren’t you one of the “real women”, one of the, unlike Suzan or myself, “Classic Transsexuals”, one of those who claim we are “transgender identified”?

    The fact we have been among the very first who called for the end of the “transgender umbrella”, among the very first who demanded the right of self determination, is often lost in the avalanche of crap on the web.

    Folks who align with liars, folks who repeat pure lies for attention, deserve to be revealed.

    As I’ve said time after time, the very essence of human rights is the right of self determination. The attempts by TG Leaders to co-opt transsexual, to DEMAND our inclusion in some “transgender umbrella” led to our developing WBT — Women Born Transsexual (but still WOMEN!).

    Perhaps the fact Suzan and I came up with it has led to so many trying to find something they can call their own. That’s fine. My problem with all this crap arises when these very same folks begin to LIE about us. My problem is also with folks who go along with this crap without knowing what they are doing or saying.

    All along, both Suzan and I have said about transsexual and transgender, “not better, not worse, just DIFFERENT”. They are NOT the same thing — but — that does not mean we cannot work together on issues that affect us all.

    It does require respect across “party lines”, it does require an end to “armed combat” and name calling on BOTH sides. That is not a “surrender” to the “evil transgender empire” — it’s sort of what you did when you aligned with Suzan (and me) on the issue of religion.

    Perhaps now you might just understand a bit better.

    Then again, if you do not — perhaps you just might “C” your way to being a bit more polite. (Suzan suggested my original response was a bit too N.Y – my old home town).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: