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

[Anonymous]

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 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.

I'm the immediate PP and I thank you for your service. That's exactly what I meant.

[Anonymous]

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.

In my personal experience, when Republicans in Montgomery County talk about "viewpoint diversity," what they're actually referring to is affirmative action for Republicans.

[Anonymous]

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 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.

[Anonymous]

She isn't going around equating all the White Christians, Latinos or Black people who don't like LGBTQ+ people with White supremacists. She's playing into the notion that all Muslims are ISIS. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

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?

You need a better understanding of the BOE's view. It isn't bigotry. What they're trying to do is create a shared space of mutual respect within the ELA curriculum - one where there is the opportunity for exposure to LGBTQA+ characters and relationships just as there is for straight characters and relationships. The opt-out not only attempts to dismantle that shared space, it's simply not tenable to provide within the general curriculum. Remember, this isn't about sex ed, and this isn't about "teaching students about gay sex" or "grooming" or anything like that. It's simply allowing the ELA curriculum to reflect the reality that LGBTQA+ people - and their relationships - exist.

[Anonymous]

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.

In my personal experience, when Republicans in Montgomery County talk about "viewpoint diversity," what they're actually referring to is affirmative action for Republicans.

+1 You can see it when folks talk about the "woke TP mob running City Council." There are 17k residents of Takoma Park. There are more than 1m residents of Montgomery County. If people from Takoma Park are winning elections, it is because they made a case that people in the rest of the county could get behind.

[Anonymous]

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.

In my personal experience, when Republicans in Montgomery County talk about "viewpoint diversity," what they're actually referring to is affirmative action for Republicans.

Wait what? There are Republicans in Montgomery county? Where???

[Anonymous]

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?

Those are not 2 separate communities. Don't be afraid to say what you mean:

"perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND anti-LGBTQA communities."

[Anonymous]

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?

Those are not 2 separate communities. Don't be afraid to say what you mean:

"perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND anti-LGBTQA communities."

Good point. There are plenty of open and affirming religious communities, and those that see tolerance as an integral part of their faith. By pretending that "religious communities" only encompasses those sects that are anti-equality, you are erasing the huge portion of the religious landscape (including many Christian denominations) that are pro-LGBTQ

[Anonymous]

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."

[Anonymous]

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?

Those are not 2 separate communities. Don't be afraid to say what you mean:

"perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND anti-LGBTQA communities."

Um… many religious communities are actually LGBTQA+ friendly. You can’t lump them all together. Can we stop lumping everyone together all the time????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any members of the BOE commented on the testimony that the county council member gave regarding Muslim protestors that appeared at last week’s meeting?

Link to video or transcript?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.