Check out this column by Michele Malkan who points out the sorry state of affairs in these 'Blue-State' schools.
They sure couldn't get away with this sh1t in Texas!

Namby-Pamby Nation

White House senior adviser Karl Rove caused a firestorm last week after observing that liberals favor "therapy and understanding" to fight terrorism in a post-Sept. 11 world.

Rove spoke the truth. But he barely scratched the surface.

The left-wing Kumbaya crowd is quietly grooming a generation of pushovers in the public schools. At a time of war, when young Americans should be educated about this nation's resilience and steely resolve, educators are indoctrinating students with saccharine-sticky lessons on "non-violent conflict resolution" and "promoting constructive dialogues."

Peaceniks are covering our kids from head to toe in emotional bubble wrap. They are creating a nation of namby-pambies.

The latest example of Hand-Holding 101 comes from the New York City public schools. According to Lauren Collins of The New Yorker magazine, the school system is introducing a new curriculum called "Operation Respect: Don't Laugh at Me" into all of its elementary and middle schools. The program is now used in at least 12,000 schools and camps across the country.

Ostensibly, the program helps kids deal with petty meanness and name-calling from insensitive classmates. Not by instructing them in self-defense, mind you, but by inflating their self-esteem. The organization's stated mission is "to transform schools, camps and organizations focused on children and youth, into more compassionate, safe and respectful environments." Instead of "put downs," teachers encourage "put ups." The Operation Respect website depicts well-adjusted children holding up signs with ego-affirming messages: "Ridicule Free Zone," "No Dissing Here," "U Matter," and "Peace Place."

Among the mindless training exercises teachers undergo is the "Caring Being" session. Collins quotes a conflict-resolution expert in Brooklyn leading middle-school educators through the lesson: "I want you all to share a time in your career as an educator where someone did or said something that made you feel like you were not cared for or respected. . . . Now do the opposite." After drawing figures encompassing their negative and positive experiences, teachers shared their finished products, "Caring Beings," which would be used to "explore creating agreements around behaviors."

Blecchh.

Teaching students to respect one another is all well and good. But a closer look at the program's founder and its sponsors shows that beneath all the fuzzy-wuzzy, touchy-feely jargon is a clear pacifist agenda.

"Operation Respect" was founded by radical lefty Peter Yarrow of the folk group Peter, Paul & Mary -- last seen in April publicly apologizing to Vietnam. During last year's presidential campaign, you may recall that Yarrow traveled and performed with his old friend and anti-war mate John Kerry, who pretended to smoke a joint while Yarrow sang the ostensible children's ditty "Puff the Magic Dragon."
No wonder they favor "Ridicule Free Zones."

The teaching materials for "Operation Respect" were created under the direction of Linda Lantieri, founder of something called the "Educators for Social Responsibility's Resolving Conflict Creatively Program." Educators for Social Responsibility promotes pedagogical material from the likes of the militant "War Resisters League" to "understand" war and peddles lessons on (hyped) anti-Muslim discrimination in America to "understand" the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Additional guidance for the lessons came from the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center. The program lays the groundwork for children to take a "peace pledge" and commit to non-violent conflict resolution to solve problems.
Translation: Therapy and understanding over vigorous self-defense.

In their brilliant book "One Nation Under Therapy," Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel diagnosed the public school's pacifist pathology dead on:

"American children badly need moral clarity. But our education establishment is too uneasy about the idea of moral judgment to meet this elementary need. Feelings of helplessness and disorientation are thoroughly, even compulsively, canvassed, elicited, discussed, and promoted; by contrast, feelings of moral indignation and condemnation are deflected and downplayed. This leaves children defenseless, clueless and unprepared to meet real and grave threats to their own and the nation's future."

Just what we need to combat throat-slitting, suicide plane-flying Islamists: young eunuchs swaying to moldy old folk music while their "Peace Place" signs flap in the wind.

LINK

I always thought dodge ball was good for developing such social skills. MARK

Let's see how this works.

Kid1: Stands with a 'Peace Place' sign and whistles merily.

Kid2: Appears with an attitude, unjustified it may be, and says, "Give me your lunch money"!

Kid1: "You are a strong person and you have it within yourself to get your own lunch money".

Kid2: Delivers a low impact smack to the lip of Kid1 and says, "Give me your lunch money"!!

Kid1: "whimper, whimper, Everyone likes you but they may not want to be your friend if you continue to act like this".

Kid2: Beats the crap out of Kid1 because he's pretty sure there will be no resistance and reaches into his pocket and takes out the money. He then turns and spits on him just for the heck of it.

Kid1: Goes through therapy for the next 35 years and finally commits suicide after realising, his life has no meaning because no matter how nice he is everyone just wants to take advantage of him.

In the life I have lived one of 2 things happens at the beginning of this story.

1 Kid1 goes down fightning and loses his lunch money anyway but Kid2 chooses softer targets in the future. Hence, Kid1s life becomes less complicated.

2 The big kid who is always nice to nice people in the neighborhood steps in as Kid1 is being pummeled and beats the crap out the Kid2 and tells him if he ever sees anything like that again that his mother will never see him again. Kid1 one has a better more peaceful life.

Many American public schools are practically battlegrounds, not to mention the mere handful of schools that have been the scene of mass killings. Some schools need metal detectors to be sure the students don't bring in guns and knives. We have taught violence forever, sugar-coated with a thin, vanishing veneer of "gentility" as if Americans were proper English gentlemen and ladies.

My daughter says that in over 16 years of teaching public school in Texas, she's never been assaulted. She was the faculty sponsor for the "Peace Club." Her suburban home has a big sign in the window: "A Family For Peace." Her family is about to join a Mennonite (pacifist, Christian) church.

With violent military recruiters roaming the school cafeteria to entice young men to "Kill a Moslem for Jesus," we need some balance to the myth of redemptive violence. Non-violence needs to be taught. American history is taught without mentioning "The Missing Peace" (a textbook by Juhnke and Hunter). YOU - over 99% of the people reading this - are probably ignorant about non-violent direct action.

The American Department of Education is a failure. Abolish it, replace it with tax vouchers that parents can use to send their kids to get private educations.

Your line about "Kill a Muslim for Jesus" is a disgusting and inaccurate strawman. Apparently Jesus' teachings about loving thine enemy did not get through to you.

Okay, it was a hyperbole, an exaggeration. There is a civil religion in America that's far more powerful than the influence of true, peaceful Christian faith. The civil religion replaces God with Country, and asks young men to go overseas and kill State-designated 'enemies' such as Communists or Muslims. During the Cold War, "Kill a Commie For Jesus" was a half-true caricature of what military recruiters and commanders in Vietnam were telling the men to do. I made up the new one. It's no coincidence that Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran are predominantly Muslim, even though Iran's not Arab.

I believe that the current government in the White House is basically telling its soldiers to go kill Muslims for Jesus, but not in quite the same words. I love my enemies; do you love yours? Who are your enemies?

Just for laughs I would be interested to see what words went in, that came out of your head with the interpretation above. MARK

Ah yes, Jesus the pacifist. He layed down his life to save our own. He didn't try to save himself, and he died serving the greatest purpose of any man on the earth.

Now lets continue reading. Hmm...wait a sec...there ARE a few more passages after the gospels! Let's see what they say.

Apparently Jesus comes down with a mighty wrath and slays thousands of people who have abandoned him. He brings down an army of angels to help him work his winepress of death and destruction.

What is the purpose of this Holy War? To bring peace to the earth.

What is the purpose of our definitely less-than-holy war in Iraq? To bring peace to the country and region. So go ahead, kill a TERRORIST (and save 10 lives) for Jesus.

Also, look in Revelation for the War in heaven that cast the Serpent Satan to earth. There is much more than just "love your enemy" in the New Testament. Although you are right, loving your enemy is important. It just doesn't seem to keep God from killing them all.

Remember that saving a life is very important. "What you have done for the least of these, you have done for me."

The term was "Kill a Commie For Mommie" not Jesus.

And no, I do not think that is what Bush is doing whatsoever.

I certainly hope all my enemies find peace and happiness in the afterlife, but that will not stop me from doing away with them if I deem them a threat to my people and my homeland too dangerous to be allowed. They want to find eternal paradise, and I can think of some unmanned Predator missile drones that would be more than happy to oblige.

But Ben - and Dixon - Christians have their orders from their highest Commander. His disciple Peter, who got a nasty rebuke when he tried to use a metal sword to defend Jesus, later wrote that Jesus's non-violent response to his executioners was an example, that believers are supposed to follow. You must obey your current orders, not worrying what your orders will be in the future. That's faith, seeing enough to take the next step, which is peace and righteousness.
Ben, you have no license to kill. If you act as a Christian (a 'little Christ') you only have a mandate to live at peace with all men. There is no exception to such a mandate. None. Have you no King but Caesar?
Revelation is what God does in the future; now Christians are supposed to live at peace with all men, love their enemies.

Ben, killing a communist or an Iraqi can never be "for Jesus." A ten-year old in Sunday School knows that you don't love somebody by killing them.

Nation-States command their soldiers to kill those human beings who the State designates as enemies. Jesus commands his disciples to love. That is an absolutely clear contradiction. But cloaking themselves in sheep's clothing, the wolves of the Nation-State say, "Oh, this is how you follow your religion."

Im an Atheist. Still want to see the words you interpreted as Bush "telling its soldiers to go kill Muslims for Jesus". Personally I think its somthing that is purely a product of your imagination.Although, I dont really care who they are killing the towell heads for. MARK

I didn't literally mean that Bush or any neo-con would honestly tell them, "Go kill a Muslim for Jesus." Bush isn't enough of a public Christian anyway - he hardly ever mentions the name of his supposed Savior. He talks like a monotheist, little more. His words could be invoked at a meeting of Christians, Jews, and Moslems, Mormons, and Unitarians.

No, it's the Nation-State that in so many words says, "Go kill a Muslim for the State religion." Preachers and priests bless that crap, that heresy. True religion shouldn't kill anybody, especially 'towell heads' who are innocent. The Red Cross and another organization estimate that perhaps 100,000 innocent non-combatants have died in the last two years in Iraq, as a result of the invasion and the insurgency. That's genocide, in my proud opinion. It isn't justifiable.

It is the insurgents and terrorists who are clearly killing the majority of the innocent non-combatants. Allowing it to continue would be allowing a genocide to take place. MARK

I did not claim I was killing for Jesus. One could never kill in the name of Christ. However there are human beings so dangerous to our countrymen and our way of life that they can no longer be allowed to continue their acts, and if stopping them involves killing them, then sadly, so be it.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

Jesus came to earth with a purpose. He was sent by his Father to fulfill a role: To be the next Adam, and to die for all of us. Everyone who even professes to be Christian knows this.

Now let's examine your pacifist Jesus under that light. Of the following, which sounds more reasonable?

1) He told Peter not to resist because he thought you should always allow your loved ones to be taken and crucified.

2) He told Peter not to resist because his death was meant to happen.

I am putting my money on the second.

Another great example of Jesus' true nature can be seen at the temple when the money lenders were trading. He didn't go on a hunger strike. He didn't sit in front of the temple in protest. He stormed in and started throwing over tables and destroying valuable goods.

Listen with an open mind and you will realize the truth:

Jesus was, and is, not a pacifist.

Technically speaking, "genocide" is when you try to eliminate a spefic ethnicity from the face of the Earth. The Iraqi insurgency isn' genocidal by any means.
While I'm pretty sure there are some Arabs who'd just as soon see every non-Arab cleansed, (just as there are a few Americans who'd just as soon have all the Arabs cleansed, too. ) this isn't their objective.

Your use fo really mean sounding words is appreciated, however.

Sounds like you think Jesus is pacifist, Ben-T.

Personally, I agree with Fit2BThaid's assesment. I have a doubts about the authenticity of Revelations, and even more about it's utility.

I think that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is pretty strong evidence that Jesus was, indeed, a pacifist. His "Turn the other cheek" spiel was pretty paifistic, too.

Notice one thing that's typical of practicing Christians who try to justify their participation in bloodshed: it's their worst exegesis, their worst interpretation. The fundamentalist Christians, who are usually pedantically literal about following the precise words of the Bible, will get as as loose as a goose or a Jesuit priest when it comes to war and peace - no bible verses, or the worst twisting of verses, out of context and contrary to clear sense.

No disciple of Jesus would shed blood. Not even in self-defense.

My first visit to a combat zone or conflict zone was at Acteal, Chiapas, Mexico, on the 11-month commemoration of the slaughter of 45 faithful, devout, obedient, innocent, pacifist, Catholic Christians. There was kind of a press conference afterwards, and somebody asked a leader among the survivors, "Why didn't you defend yourselves with firearms?" The leader gave an answer you'd expect from a Baptist or Pentecostal preacher, but which you don't get from fundamentalists: "Thou shalt not kill. Love your enemies."

There were no further questions about Christian pacifism that day.

Back to the topic: you guys probably find my arguments fantastically unbelievable. That's because when you were in school in the USA, your teachers, parents, preachers and priests taught you the bloody civil religion you probably still believe: the myth of redemptive violence. You probably still believe that violence is holy. No, not according to the Christian New Testament - it's unholy for followers of Jesus to shed blood.

Ben-T, you said regarding the defense of the United States by people who claim the name of Christ, "One could never kill in the name of Christ. However there are human beings so dangerous to our countrymen and our way of life that they can no longer be allowed to continue their acts, and if stopping them involves killing them, then sadly, so be it." If you permanently renounce the name of Christ, you are free to kill for the government. Until then, you can't, because you carry the name of Christ. If you teach violence, you teach heresy, but God still loves you and awaits your repentance for such sin.

End of sermon; I'm sleepy. Good night.