SB 48 in a Nutshell

SB 48 will teach children as young as five to not only accept but also endorse transgenderism, bisexuality, and homosexuality through our social sciences curriculum including history, history books and instructional materials. The media and others call SB 48 the "Gay History Bill," however, SB 48 goes even further. The bill casts a wide-reaching net that includes all social sciences like economics, government, and cultural and social anthropology.

Furthermore, SB 48 ties the hands of teachers and administrators at the local level and often contradicts what students are taught at home. It also requires teachers and administrators to enter into the divisive debate over sexual orientation and morality and to portray only one side of that debate. Essentially teachers and administrators are being asked not to tolerate but to advocate.

Does Sexual Orientation Matter?

Does sexual orientation matter when it comes to significant historical events?  NO!

Does Alexander the Great's bi-sexual behavior have anything to do with his ability to kill or dominate the world?  Doubtful.  (although his early and untimely death may have been a result of his lack of self control)

So why are the over sexualized and completely intolerant LGBT groups trying to sell California legislators on the need to sexualize history for our children?  Why do they want your children to get cozy and comfortable knowing some of history's most prominent figures were sexually dysfunctional?  It makes no sense.

Whether or not a man will go to hell for sucking on the penis of another man is a matter for God to decide and should not be a matter for discussion in public K-12 classrooms, much less any connection between historic figures and their the sexual promiscuity. 

Below is a law being pushed through that will do all of the above and make sexual dysfunctions some perverted part of history to be taught to children in an attempt to normalize mental illness.  Read it and then act upon it.

Warm Regards,
The Fullerton Sentinel

____________________________

(from Advocates for Faith and Freedom)
Senate Bill (SB) 48, which was written by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would require that US history, California history, and social science curriculum in our schools deliberately include instruction on historical contributions from the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community.


Hanging on the coattails of “anti-bullying” measures, this bill once again forces personal sexuality into the instruction of our children, starting in elementary school.  Currently, the bill has passed the Senate Education Committee with a 6-3 vote.

The bill now moves to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and you need to make your voice heard on this matter!  Please contact your legislators today and tell them to vote “No” on SB 48!  Find your legislators here: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Politicians and their religious beliefs

Ally Bordas

By Ally Bordas
For the Daily Titan
Published: October 21, 2010

When you step into a position of power, you have to be prepared to lay your life out on a silver platter for others to observe and pick apart. Whether or not you have Constitutional rights, the First Amendment is a bitch and American citizens are greedily awaiting to hear about the latest political scandal.

Just look at celebrities: protection of privacy? I think not.

“That fact that an atheist couldn’t get elected dog-catcher in the United States of America is no secret,” stated writer Jonathan Malesic, ABC Religion and Ethics article.

If politicians ran around with their religious beliefs stamped across their forehead, they would be no closer to gaining a seat in the Senate as Mike the “Situation” from Jersey Shore is. Look at Christine O’Donnell, she admitted to being a witch at one point in her life and now she is constantly mocked for it. I mean who can take a reformed witch seriously? Save it for Halloween.

“Most voters (70 percent) want the president to be a person of faith. But half of the electorate expresses unease with politicians, presidential contenders and others, who talk too much about their religious beliefs,” according to an article written by the Research Center for the People and the Press.

I think it’s true – it would be awkward to have a hardcore preacher waltzing into the Senate trying to heal you.

Everyone in the United States has the right to express their religion in their own personal or public way. But religion always seems to be a touchy subject with people: Muslims get profiled as terrorists (Islamophobia), born-again Christians speak in tongues, Scientologists are secretly “crazy,” Catholics sit on their pedestals, warlocks and wiccans are just emo people on drugs and Rastafarians are, obviously, lovers of the natural herb. So do politicians really want to have to fight off these religious stereotypes every single time they step into the spotlight? I don’t think so.

But then again, I would want to know if the president, for example, is secretly worshipping the devil at night. Just like I would want to know if the first lady was a Bible hugger. Since I am an American citizen with kick-ass First Amendment rights, I feel like I should have the right to know something about politicians and their religious beliefs. No Christine O’Donnell, I do not want to hear about your first date to a satanical bloodbath or whatever creepy ceremony you so willingly took part in (yes, I am aware of the fact that the media most likely blows all of this out of proportion).

Just like we have our First Amendment rights as boring average citizens, I guess I cannot deny the fact that our politicians have their rights too. The Constitution states “no religious test shall be imposed on any public official,” according to an article written by Debate the Opposing Views. So, technically, we may never know which god or devil any of our politicians may secretly worship (they can just lie to us).

What I want to know from religious politicians is what role will faith play during his or her job as a national politician. What are the boundaries between government and religion? Since religion can dominate a person’s psyche and lifestyle, I think it is only fair we have these questions answered.

Debate the Opposing Views also told readers to take a closer look at past politicians to see how fanatical they are about their religion. “James Watt, President Reagan’s first Secretary of the Interior, told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, ‘after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.” See, obsessed with his religion.
And also what about Bush? Does anyone remember Bush stating that the reason he was president was because God appointed him? I mean he told America that God wanted him and only him. Talk about narcissistic.

All I am saying is that we have to be careful. We do not want our politicians being affected by their religious beliefs to the point that they forget how our country was really formed: by revolution, war and oppression (with a hint of faith). Religion comes second to our Constitution. And most importantly, Debate the Opposing Views reminds us to remember that our politicians “don’t drop their religious beliefs at the White House door.”