BOE Response to Council Member’s Testimony re Muslim Faith and White Supremacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list] us ugh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

Same here. Diversity is OK in MoCo as long as it's not viewpoint diversity. Then you must be shunned for not agreeing with them.

The fact that gay people exist in real life and therefore in some books is not a "viewpoint."

No, but not wanting your kids to be taught about it at a young age is.

Not wanting your kids to be taught about the existence of gravity at a young age is also a viewpoint.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

Lol, kids aren’t idiots. They see things, they hear things, and they understand things. Thankfully they are much more tolerant and accepting than people like you.

So you don’t agree with the concept of age appropriate topics?

But everything discussed here was age appropriate.

+100..kids have *gasp* gay parents...they understand this from day 1. Kids who have straight parents see relationship dynamics as well. You're not sitting here crying about them seeing men kiss women. Grow up. I'm so embarrassed for you.

Resorting to insults. Not unexpected.

DP, yes. People will insult you for being ignorant. Obviously it is something you're used to. Maybe read a book for a change. Get off DCUM. If you asked valid questions or brought up valid points, people would be willing to have a discourse with you. But you're fully spewing BS and don't care to learn anything new, so...

Again…
I’m the DP who posted above. Spewing hate into an anonymous forum doesn’t help your argument. You don’t appear smarter or more logical. You simply appear… hateful.

If you are trying to sway opinion, this doesn’t work. Can you cut it out?

There’s no hate. No one was trying to be smarter. It’s called common sense… Calling bigots what they are isn’t hate. Calling a nazi a nazi doesn’t make me a hateful person. It’s telling someone the truth of who they are. You seem like you can’t handle that yet. So funny how people try to spin the narrative so they aren’t the bad guy when really…. You’re the one in the wrong. Deal etc it.

So a parent wanting to opt out of their kids reading a specific book makes them a bigot? And a nazi? And we’re the ones that need to read a book and get an education?
You can’t be serious. You just can’t.

Bigots are my way or highway. But same group will try to paint anyone opposing as bigots. It's very old trick.

I don't care even a bit about this LGBT or Muslim agenda. I see all of them as person and as long as they are not forcing their agenda, I have no issue with any group. Juts teach your LGBT stuff at home and teach your religious stuff at home. Let school be for teaching core subject because MCPS can't teach core subject. Let's focus on that.

THIS

Why can no one get it through their head that the books are part of the reading curriculum - not family life or anything else. They are in addition to all of the other texts available. As far as I know READING is a core subject.

Keep your LGBT agenda out of school. Keep your religious agenda out of school.

Keep your straight agenda out of school then.

The norm isn’t an agenda…it’s just the norm.
(And yes, gay people are NORMAL, but heterosexual couples are the norm in our society. You cannot argue that. I mean you will, but you’d be wrong.)

White people could also be said to be "the norm in our society." Should books only have white characters?

This is why I think the CAIR MoCo strategic alliance with Moms for Liberty is so wrong-headed. Moms for Liberty has consistently argued against fact-based teaching of the civil rights movement, and so-called "critical race theory," which they have defined as any teaching that does not center white male slaveholders in our discussion of US history.

They oppose multicultural education, which includes baseline education of cultural and religious differences.

Agreed. I think it was a bad decision for multiple reasons.

And Mink's decision to say "Muslim families" are linked to white supremacist groups (Moms for Liberty is not categorized by anyone as a white supremacist group) was also a bad decision for multiple reasons.

I think there's a big difference between "Muslim families" (which she didn't say) and "some Muslim families," and I don't think there's much difference at all between a Christian-nationalist group and a white-supremacist group.

Moms for Liberty is horrible, but they are not a violent terrorist group. Many White supremacist groups are, because they are explicitly hateful. You could make the argument that groups like Moms for Liberty are worse because more people buy into their BS, but that doesn't mean they are the same.

I'm usually a splitter, not a lumper, but this is too much for me. You don't have to actively throw bombs to be a white supremacist or a (so-called) Christian nationalist. I'm not going to waste time or energy on the minute differences between various white-supremacist or Christian-nationalist groups. The overlap in the Venn diagram is nearly 100%.

You can designate these groups however you want, but that doesn't mean anybody else will agree with you. Go ahead, try to find any reputable website that describes Moms for Liberty as a white supremacist group.

There are plenty of reputable websites that describe them as a Christian-nationalist group.

If you can't acknowledge that "white supremacist" and "christian nationalist" have different meanings and are interpreted differently by most people, then I cannot help you.

What are the different meanings? Please explain.

You have google, look it up

I have. I don't see any meaningful differences. They all hang out together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list] us ugh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

Same here. Diversity is OK in MoCo as long as it's not viewpoint diversity. Then you must be shunned for not agreeing with them.

The fact that gay people exist in real life and therefore in some books is not a "viewpoint."

No, but not wanting your kids to be taught about it at a young age is.

Not wanting your kids to be taught about the existence of gravity at a young age is also a viewpoint.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

Lol, kids aren’t idiots. They see things, they hear things, and they understand things. Thankfully they are much more tolerant and accepting than people like you.

So you don’t agree with the concept of age appropriate topics?

But everything discussed here was age appropriate.

+100..kids have *gasp* gay parents...they understand this from day 1. Kids who have straight parents see relationship dynamics as well. You're not sitting here crying about them seeing men kiss women. Grow up. I'm so embarrassed for you.

Resorting to insults. Not unexpected.

DP, yes. People will insult you for being ignorant. Obviously it is something you're used to. Maybe read a book for a change. Get off DCUM. If you asked valid questions or brought up valid points, people would be willing to have a discourse with you. But you're fully spewing BS and don't care to learn anything new, so...

Again…
I’m the DP who posted above. Spewing hate into an anonymous forum doesn’t help your argument. You don’t appear smarter or more logical. You simply appear… hateful.

If you are trying to sway opinion, this doesn’t work. Can you cut it out?

There’s no hate. No one was trying to be smarter. It’s called common sense… Calling bigots what they are isn’t hate. Calling a nazi a nazi doesn’t make me a hateful person. It’s telling someone the truth of who they are. You seem like you can’t handle that yet. So funny how people try to spin the narrative so they aren’t the bad guy when really…. You’re the one in the wrong. Deal etc it.

So a parent wanting to opt out of their kids reading a specific book makes them a bigot? And a nazi? And we’re the ones that need to read a book and get an education?
You can’t be serious. You just can’t.

Bigots are my way or highway. But same group will try to paint anyone opposing as bigots. It's very old trick.

I don't care even a bit about this LGBT or Muslim agenda. I see all of them as person and as long as they are not forcing their agenda, I have no issue with any group. Juts teach your LGBT stuff at home and teach your religious stuff at home. Let school be for teaching core subject because MCPS can't teach core subject. Let's focus on that.

THIS

Why can no one get it through their head that the books are part of the reading curriculum - not family life or anything else. They are in addition to all of the other texts available. As far as I know READING is a core subject.

Keep your LGBT agenda out of school. Keep your religious agenda out of school.

Keep your straight agenda out of school then.

The norm isn’t an agenda…it’s just the norm.
(And yes, gay people are NORMAL, but heterosexual couples are the norm in our society. You cannot argue that. I mean you will, but you’d be wrong.)

White people could also be said to be "the norm in our society." Should books only have white characters?

This is why I think the CAIR MoCo strategic alliance with Moms for Liberty is so wrong-headed. Moms for Liberty has consistently argued against fact-based teaching of the civil rights movement, and so-called "critical race theory," which they have defined as any teaching that does not center white male slaveholders in our discussion of US history.

They oppose multicultural education, which includes baseline education of cultural and religious differences.

Agreed. I think it was a bad decision for multiple reasons.

And Mink's decision to say "Muslim families" are linked to white supremacist groups (Moms for Liberty is not categorized by anyone as a white supremacist group) was also a bad decision for multiple reasons.

I think there's a big difference between "Muslim families" (which she didn't say) and "some Muslim families," and I don't think there's much difference at all between a Christian-nationalist group and a white-supremacist group.

Moms for Liberty is horrible, but they are not a violent terrorist group. Many White supremacist groups are, because they are explicitly hateful. You could make the argument that groups like Moms for Liberty are worse because more people buy into their BS, but that doesn't mean they are the same.

I'm usually a splitter, not a lumper, but this is too much for me. You don't have to actively throw bombs to be a white supremacist or a (so-called) Christian nationalist. I'm not going to waste time or energy on the minute differences between various white-supremacist or Christian-nationalist groups. The overlap in the Venn diagram is nearly 100%.

You can designate these groups however you want, but that doesn't mean anybody else will agree with you. Go ahead, try to find any reputable website that describes Moms for Liberty as a white supremacist group.

There are plenty of reputable websites that describe them as a Christian-nationalist group.

If you can't acknowledge that "white supremacist" and "christian nationalist" have different meanings and are interpreted differently by most people, then I cannot help you.

What are the different meanings? Please explain.

You have google, look it up

I have. I don't see any meaningful differences. They all hang out together.

::sigh::

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list] us ugh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

Same here. Diversity is OK in MoCo as long as it's not viewpoint diversity. Then you must be shunned for not agreeing with them.

The fact that gay people exist in real life and therefore in some books is not a "viewpoint."

No, but not wanting your kids to be taught about it at a young age is.

Not wanting your kids to be taught about the existence of gravity at a young age is also a viewpoint.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

Lol, kids aren’t idiots. They see things, they hear things, and they understand things. Thankfully they are much more tolerant and accepting than people like you.

So you don’t agree with the concept of age appropriate topics?

But everything discussed here was age appropriate.

+100..kids have *gasp* gay parents...they understand this from day 1. Kids who have straight parents see relationship dynamics as well. You're not sitting here crying about them seeing men kiss women. Grow up. I'm so embarrassed for you.

Resorting to insults. Not unexpected.

DP, yes. People will insult you for being ignorant. Obviously it is something you're used to. Maybe read a book for a change. Get off DCUM. If you asked valid questions or brought up valid points, people would be willing to have a discourse with you. But you're fully spewing BS and don't care to learn anything new, so...

Again…
I’m the DP who posted above. Spewing hate into an anonymous forum doesn’t help your argument. You don’t appear smarter or more logical. You simply appear… hateful.

If you are trying to sway opinion, this doesn’t work. Can you cut it out?

There’s no hate. No one was trying to be smarter. It’s called common sense… Calling bigots what they are isn’t hate. Calling a nazi a nazi doesn’t make me a hateful person. It’s telling someone the truth of who they are. You seem like you can’t handle that yet. So funny how people try to spin the narrative so they aren’t the bad guy when really…. You’re the one in the wrong. Deal etc it.

So a parent wanting to opt out of their kids reading a specific book makes them a bigot? And a nazi? And we’re the ones that need to read a book and get an education?
You can’t be serious. You just can’t.

Bigots are my way or highway. But same group will try to paint anyone opposing as bigots. It's very old trick.

I don't care even a bit about this LGBT or Muslim agenda. I see all of them as person and as long as they are not forcing their agenda, I have no issue with any group. Juts teach your LGBT stuff at home and teach your religious stuff at home. Let school be for teaching core subject because MCPS can't teach core subject. Let's focus on that.

THIS

Why can no one get it through their head that the books are part of the reading curriculum - not family life or anything else. They are in addition to all of the other texts available. As far as I know READING is a core subject.

Keep your LGBT agenda out of school. Keep your religious agenda out of school.

Keep your straight agenda out of school then.

The norm isn’t an agenda…it’s just the norm.
(And yes, gay people are NORMAL, but heterosexual couples are the norm in our society. You cannot argue that. I mean you will, but you’d be wrong.)

White people could also be said to be "the norm in our society." Should books only have white characters?

This is why I think the CAIR MoCo strategic alliance with Moms for Liberty is so wrong-headed. Moms for Liberty has consistently argued against fact-based teaching of the civil rights movement, and so-called "critical race theory," which they have defined as any teaching that does not center white male slaveholders in our discussion of US history.

They oppose multicultural education, which includes baseline education of cultural and religious differences.

Agreed. I think it was a bad decision for multiple reasons.

And Mink's decision to say "Muslim families" are linked to white supremacist groups (Moms for Liberty is not categorized by anyone as a white supremacist group) was also a bad decision for multiple reasons.

I think there's a big difference between "Muslim families" (which she didn't say) and "some Muslim families," and I don't think there's much difference at all between a Christian-nationalist group and a white-supremacist group.

DP.

And all of this detracts from the main point: Mink’s inappropriate comments.

The main point is the MCPS policy, which (rightly, in my opinion) does not allow parents to opt their children out of certain books in the ELA curriculum.

Trying to distract from Mink's horrible comments which were about "some Muslim families" (but don't worry, some, she assumes, are good people).

Some of us look at the big picture (the policy), and some of us try to stir the the pot.

Some of us have Muslim loved ones who carry with them the trauma of being assumed to be terrorists after 9/11 and don't have the privilege of focusing on "the big picture".

So to clarify: you have Muslim loved ones who do not object to the MCPS policy but do object to Mink's comments prompted by the objections to the policy?

Yes. They even agree some of their family members are racist and bigoted, but find being linked to white supremacist groups to be threatening to their families and also not justifiable.

This. It's sad that Mink and her supporters can't seem to wrap their heads around a nuanced understanding of Muslims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

Same here. Diversity is OK in MoCo as long as it's not viewpoint diversity. Then you must be shunned for not agreeing with them.

The fact that gay people exist in real life and therefore in some books is not a "viewpoint."

No, but not wanting your kids to be taught about it at a young age is.

Not wanting your kids to be taught about the existence of gravity at a young age is also a viewpoint.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

Lol, kids aren’t idiots. They see things, they hear things, and they understand things. Thankfully they are much more tolerant and accepting than people like you.

So you don’t agree with the concept of age appropriate topics?

But everything discussed here was age appropriate.

+100..kids have *gasp* gay parents...they understand this from day 1. Kids who have straight parents see relationship dynamics as well. You're not sitting here crying about them seeing men kiss women. Grow up. I'm so embarrassed for you.

Resorting to insults. Not unexpected.

DP, yes. People will insult you for being ignorant. Obviously it is something you're used to. Maybe read a book for a change. Get off DCUM. If you asked valid questions or brought up valid points, people would be willing to have a discourse with you. But you're fully spewing BS and don't care to learn anything new, so...

Again…
I’m the DP who posted above. Spewing hate into an anonymous forum doesn’t help your argument. You don’t appear smarter or more logical. You simply appear… hateful.

If you are trying to sway opinion, this doesn’t work. Can you cut it out?

There’s no hate. No one was trying to be smarter. It’s called common sense… Calling bigots what they are isn’t hate. Calling a nazi a nazi doesn’t make me a hateful person. It’s telling someone the truth of who they are. You seem like you can’t handle that yet. So funny how people try to spin the narrative so they aren’t the bad guy when really…. You’re the one in the wrong. Deal etc it.

So a parent wanting to opt out of their kids reading a specific book makes them a bigot? And a nazi? And we’re the ones that need to read a book and get an education?
You can’t be serious. You just can’t.

I’m sorry, was anyone talking to you? The post had nothing to do with opting out of books. Learn to read before getting upset.

You’re kidding, right? Expand this chain and then report back. It’s about age appropriate topics - LGBTQ books being one of them. And I am a contributor to this particular thread. So yes, several people were talking to me.

No one called you a bigot or a nazi for wanting to opt out. But you sure got hyper defensive about it, so that tells me you probably actually are one or the other.

If someone was calling me a murderer, or a child abuser, or a rapist, I’d absolutely get defensive about it - because I am not. Are you saying unless I sit quietly you will assume by my reaction that I am a murderer/child abuser/rapist? Seems like odd logic.

Normal people who are innocent of something don't feel the need to be super defensive, ESPECIALLY on an anonymous forum. Guilty people usually over defend themselves because they know they are in the wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

Same here. Diversity is OK in MoCo as long as it's not viewpoint diversity. Then you must be shunned for not agreeing with them.

The fact that gay people exist in real life and therefore in some books is not a "viewpoint."

No, but not wanting your kids to be taught about it at a young age is.

Not wanting your kids to be taught about the existence of gravity at a young age is also a viewpoint.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

Lol, kids aren’t idiots. They see things, they hear things, and they understand things. Thankfully they are much more tolerant and accepting than people like you.

So you don’t agree with the concept of age appropriate topics?

But everything discussed here was age appropriate.

+100..kids have *gasp* gay parents...they understand this from day 1. Kids who have straight parents see relationship dynamics as well. You're not sitting here crying about them seeing men kiss women. Grow up. I'm so embarrassed for you.

Resorting to insults. Not unexpected.

DP, yes. People will insult you for being ignorant. Obviously it is something you're used to. Maybe read a book for a change. Get off DCUM. If you asked valid questions or brought up valid points, people would be willing to have a discourse with you. But you're fully spewing BS and don't care to learn anything new, so...

Again…
I’m the DP who posted above. Spewing hate into an anonymous forum doesn’t help your argument. You don’t appear smarter or more logical. You simply appear… hateful.

If you are trying to sway opinion, this doesn’t work. Can you cut it out?

There’s no hate. No one was trying to be smarter. It’s called common sense… Calling bigots what they are isn’t hate. Calling a nazi a nazi doesn’t make me a hateful person. It’s telling someone the truth of who they are. You seem like you can’t handle that yet. So funny how people try to spin the narrative so they aren’t the bad guy when really…. You’re the one in the wrong. Deal etc it.

So a parent wanting to opt out of their kids reading a specific book makes them a bigot? And a nazi? And we’re the ones that need to read a book and get an education?
You can’t be serious. You just can’t.

I’m sorry, was anyone talking to you? The post had nothing to do with opting out of books. Learn to read before getting upset.

You’re kidding, right? Expand this chain and then report back. It’s about age appropriate topics - LGBTQ books being one of them. And I am a contributor to this particular thread. So yes, several people were talking to me.

No one called you a bigot or a nazi for wanting to opt out. But you sure got hyper defensive about it, so that tells me you probably actually are one or the other.

If someone was calling me a murderer, or a child abuser, or a rapist, I’d absolutely get defensive about it - because I am not. Are you saying unless I sit quietly you will assume by my reaction that I am a murderer/child abuser/rapist? Seems like odd logic.

Normal people who are innocent of something don't feel the need to be super defensive, ESPECIALLY on an anonymous forum. Guilty people usually over defend themselves because they know they are in the wrong.

DP who has been following this conversation here.

You’re reaching. Can we get back on track please? Perhaps it’s fun or satisfying to call people bigots and nazis. Some of us, however, see this type of action as dangerous. When you throw these accusations around with absolutely nothing to back them up, these very powerful words begin to lose their meaning.

The PP you are replying to is probably not a nazi or bigot. They may simply disagree with you on some nuance within this topic. Until you KNOW, it is irresponsible and, frankly, bully-ish to act this way.

This thread exists because labels were casually and carelessly thrown around. Let’s stop that.

[Anonymous]

Glad to see that Kristin Mink's true colors are being revealed, but sad that she had to hurt so many people for folks to see the kind of person she really is:

https://moco360.media/2023/06/14/montgomery-county-councilmember-mink-apologizes-for-language-in-2019-tweets-about-zionist-jews/

[Anonymous]

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/moms-liberty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list] us ugh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

Same here. Diversity is OK in MoCo as long as it's not viewpoint diversity. Then you must be shunned for not agreeing with them.

The fact that gay people exist in real life and therefore in some books is not a "viewpoint."

No, but not wanting your kids to be taught about it at a young age is.

Not wanting your kids to be taught about the existence of gravity at a young age is also a viewpoint.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

Lol, kids aren’t idiots. They see things, they hear things, and they understand things. Thankfully they are much more tolerant and accepting than people like you.

So you don’t agree with the concept of age appropriate topics?

But everything discussed here was age appropriate.

+100..kids have *gasp* gay parents...they understand this from day 1. Kids who have straight parents see relationship dynamics as well. You're not sitting here crying about them seeing men kiss women. Grow up. I'm so embarrassed for you.

Resorting to insults. Not unexpected.

DP, yes. People will insult you for being ignorant. Obviously it is something you're used to. Maybe read a book for a change. Get off DCUM. If you asked valid questions or brought up valid points, people would be willing to have a discourse with you. But you're fully spewing BS and don't care to learn anything new, so...

Again…
I’m the DP who posted above. Spewing hate into an anonymous forum doesn’t help your argument. You don’t appear smarter or more logical. You simply appear… hateful.

If you are trying to sway opinion, this doesn’t work. Can you cut it out?

There’s no hate. No one was trying to be smarter. It’s called common sense… Calling bigots what they are isn’t hate. Calling a nazi a nazi doesn’t make me a hateful person. It’s telling someone the truth of who they are. You seem like you can’t handle that yet. So funny how people try to spin the narrative so they aren’t the bad guy when really…. You’re the one in the wrong. Deal etc it.

So a parent wanting to opt out of their kids reading a specific book makes them a bigot? And a nazi? And we’re the ones that need to read a book and get an education?
You can’t be serious. You just can’t.

Bigots are my way or highway. But same group will try to paint anyone opposing as bigots. It's very old trick.

I don't care even a bit about this LGBT or Muslim agenda. I see all of them as person and as long as they are not forcing their agenda, I have no issue with any group. Juts teach your LGBT stuff at home and teach your religious stuff at home. Let school be for teaching core subject because MCPS can't teach core subject. Let's focus on that.

THIS

Why can no one get it through their head that the books are part of the reading curriculum - not family life or anything else. They are in addition to all of the other texts available. As far as I know READING is a core subject.

Keep your LGBT agenda out of school. Keep your religious agenda out of school.

Keep your straight agenda out of school then.

The norm isn’t an agenda…it’s just the norm.
(And yes, gay people are NORMAL, but heterosexual couples are the norm in our society. You cannot argue that. I mean you will, but you’d be wrong.)

White people could also be said to be "the norm in our society." Should books only have white characters?

This is why I think the CAIR MoCo strategic alliance with Moms for Liberty is so wrong-headed. Moms for Liberty has consistently argued against fact-based teaching of the civil rights movement, and so-called "critical race theory," which they have defined as any teaching that does not center white male slaveholders in our discussion of US history.

They oppose multicultural education, which includes baseline education of cultural and religious differences.

Please provide evidence for this statement. I don't think that you will be able to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually thought Mink’s testimony was, for the most part, powerful and thoughtful. She (more than some BOE members) actually took the time to speak with and listen to the POV of those requesting to reinstate the opt-out. While she ultimately felt their position was not tenable because opting out, in her view, was not neutral but actually causes harm to the LGBTQ community, her testimony was mostly intended to build a bridge rather than divide.

+1 Mink is not always my favorite board member, but she does have a nuanced understanding of intersectionality. I know that the Moms for Liberty folks thought they had a trump card by involving CAIR (because libs love brown folks, amiright?) but Mink seems to understand that religion and acceptance are not opposing, and that an intersectional approach demands consideration of people marginalized on multiple axis, including LGBTQ+ Muslim American youth.

DP. Or, to put it in plain language for him people unfamiliar with terms like "marginalized" or "intersectional":

Some Muslim-Americans are LGBTQ+.
Some LGBTQ+ people are Muslim-Americans.
The Moms for Liberty folks don't want LGBTQ+ people (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) in public life AND ALSO don't want Muslim-American people (whether LGBTQ+ or non-LGBTQ+) in public life.

Thank you.

Seemed to me that the only group that didn’t want Muslims to have a place in public life was the group of largely white, middle-aged women staging the counter protest and labeling their counterparts’ religion as bigoted and consistent with white supremacy.

If that's how it seems to you, I can only conclude that you haven't been paying attention.

Yes, because we all know that the best way to invite a marginalized group into the public discourse is to label them as bigots, describe their children’s testimony as dogma and make clear that they’re on the same side of an issue as white supremacists.

This is off-topic, but why would we consider people who actively chose to move to a majority Christian nation as "marginalized?" If I move to Saudi Arabia, am I automatically marginalized?

How dumb are you? No… seriously.

Try answering the question. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually thought Mink’s testimony was, for the most part, powerful and thoughtful. She (more than some BOE members) actually took the time to speak with and listen to the POV of those requesting to reinstate the opt-out. While she ultimately felt their position was not tenable because opting out, in her view, was not neutral but actually causes harm to the LGBTQ community, her testimony was mostly intended to build a bridge rather than divide.

+1 Mink is not always my favorite board member, but she does have a nuanced understanding of intersectionality. I know that the Moms for Liberty folks thought they had a trump card by involving CAIR (because libs love brown folks, amiright?) but Mink seems to understand that religion and acceptance are not opposing, and that an intersectional approach demands consideration of people marginalized on multiple axis, including LGBTQ+ Muslim American youth.

DP. Or, to put it in plain language for him people unfamiliar with terms like "marginalized" or "intersectional":

Some Muslim-Americans are LGBTQ+.
Some LGBTQ+ people are Muslim-Americans.
The Moms for Liberty folks don't want LGBTQ+ people (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) in public life AND ALSO don't want Muslim-American people (whether LGBTQ+ or non-LGBTQ+) in public life.

Thank you.

Seemed to me that the only group that didn’t want Muslims to have a place in public life was the group of largely white, middle-aged women staging the counter protest and labeling their counterparts’ religion as bigoted and consistent with white supremacy.

If that's how it seems to you, I can only conclude that you haven't been paying attention.

Yes, because we all know that the best way to invite a marginalized group into the public discourse is to label them as bigots, describe their children’s testimony as dogma and make clear that they’re on the same side of an issue as white supremacists.

This is off-topic, but why would we consider people who actively chose to move to a majority Christian nation as "marginalized?" If I move to Saudi Arabia, am I automatically marginalized?

Oh boy. It’s really sad that I even have to clarify this, but you do realize that not all Muslims in the United States are immigrants. There are, gasp, actual native born Americans of the Muslim faith in this country. I knew it was bad in MoCo, but not this bad. Really?

Not many... And honestly, as a member of a minority religion that no one calls marginalized, I have little sympathy for this attitude. Grow up and own your choices to belong to a minority group, or move. Your voice is welcome, but it merits no additional weight because you are part of a small group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually thought Mink’s testimony was, for the most part, powerful and thoughtful. She (more than some BOE members) actually took the time to speak with and listen to the POV of those requesting to reinstate the opt-out. While she ultimately felt their position was not tenable because opting out, in her view, was not neutral but actually causes harm to the LGBTQ community, her testimony was mostly intended to build a bridge rather than divide.

+1 Mink is not always my favorite board member, but she does have a nuanced understanding of intersectionality. I know that the Moms for Liberty folks thought they had a trump card by involving CAIR (because libs love brown folks, amiright?) but Mink seems to understand that religion and acceptance are not opposing, and that an intersectional approach demands consideration of people marginalized on multiple axis, including LGBTQ+ Muslim American youth.

DP. Or, to put it in plain language for him people unfamiliar with terms like "marginalized" or "intersectional":

Some Muslim-Americans are LGBTQ+.
Some LGBTQ+ people are Muslim-Americans.
The Moms for Liberty folks don't want LGBTQ+ people (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) in public life AND ALSO don't want Muslim-American people (whether LGBTQ+ or non-LGBTQ+) in public life.

Thank you.

Seemed to me that the only group that didn’t want Muslims to have a place in public life was the group of largely white, middle-aged women staging the counter protest and labeling their counterparts’ religion as bigoted and consistent with white supremacy.

If that's how it seems to you, I can only conclude that you haven't been paying attention.

Yes, because we all know that the best way to invite a marginalized group into the public discourse is to label them as bigots, describe their children’s testimony as dogma and make clear that they’re on the same side of an issue as white supremacists.

This is off-topic, but why would we consider people who actively chose to move to a majority Christian nation as "marginalized?" If I move to Saudi Arabia, am I automatically marginalized?

Oh boy. It’s really sad that I even have to clarify this, but you do realize that not all Muslims in the United States are immigrants. There are, gasp, actual native born Americans of the Muslim faith in this country. I knew it was bad in MoCo, but not this bad. Really?

Not many... And honestly, as a member of a minority religion that no one calls marginalized, I have little sympathy for this attitude. Grow up and own your choices to belong to a minority group, or move. Your voice is welcome, but it merits no additional weight because you are part of a small group.

Hi, council member Mink!

[Anonymous]

A Muslim-led Minnesota community legislator recently banned pride flags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A Muslim-led Minnesota community legislator recently banned pride flags.

It’s good to see that the white, GOP Christians finally had their example followed after leading the charge on this alone for years

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2023/03/14/florida-gop-proposal-would-ban-pride-flag-but-let-confederate-flag-fly-at-state-buildings/amp/

[Anonymous]

Latest update on this story:

No injunction issued in MCPS LGBTQ+ books lawsuit

https://moco360.media/2023/08/24/no-injunction-issued-in-mcps-lgbtq-books-lawsuit/

Boardman issued her ruling Thursday, accompanied by a 60-page memorandum shedding light on her legal justification for denying the plaintiffs’ motion.

“This case involves objections to a public-school curriculum,” the memorandum reads. “The Fourth Circuit has not addressed the question of when a mandatory public-school curriculum might burden the religious exercise of students or parents. Other courts have. Every court that has addressed the question has concluded that the mere exposure in public school to ideas that contradict religious beliefs does not burden the religious exercise of students or parents.”

Boardman’s memorandum continues:
“The parents still may instruct their children on their religious beliefs regarding sexuality, marriage, and gender, and each family may place contrary views in its religious context. No government action prevents the parents from freely discussing the topics raised in the storybooks with their children or teaching their children as they wish.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Latest update on this story:

No injunction issued in MCPS LGBTQ+ books lawsuit

https://moco360.media/2023/08/24/no-injunction-issued-in-mcps-lgbtq-books-lawsuit/

Boardman issued her ruling Thursday, accompanied by a 60-page memorandum shedding light on her legal justification for denying the plaintiffs’ motion.

“This case involves objections to a public-school curriculum,” the memorandum reads. “The Fourth Circuit has not addressed the question of when a mandatory public-school curriculum might burden the religious exercise of students or parents. Other courts have. Every court that has addressed the question has concluded that the mere exposure in public school to ideas that contradict religious beliefs does not burden the religious exercise of students or parents.”

Boardman’s memorandum continues:
“The parents still may instruct their children on their religious beliefs regarding sexuality, marriage, and gender, and each family may place contrary views in its religious context. No government action prevents the parents from freely discussing the topics raised in the storybooks with their children or teaching their children as they wish.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/not-a-fundamental-right-maryland-court-strikes-down-parents-request-to-opt-kids-out-of-lgbt-curriculum/
“With the new school year beginning, the case is on the fast track to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals—and the parents plan to appeal the decision.”

We'll see what the Supreme Court says.