| « (21.31) Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section (21.33) » |
Situational Ethics
December 7th, 1995
Mrs. Thompson:
Your use of situational ethics in Nicholas’ home work is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s rulings (Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet Decided June 27, 1994) prohibiting establishment of religion or irreligion. Situational ethics are a product of Secular Humanism which has been declared a religion by the Supreme Court and is also a product of irreligion since there are no situational ethics in our religion. This violation is unconscionable to our family and is a violation of our “free exercise” rights. It is no less a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment and exercise clauses than forcing Nicholas to say a prayer written by the State. Furthermore your outline telling us, as Nicholas’ parents, that you will be teaching about interdependence, as a good thing, is also a violation of Nicholas’ and our, as his parents, rights.
Your questions do not give enough information to form a proper answer for even the most informed of individuals let alone an impressionable teenager and the Supreme Court has mentioned the lack of a child’s ability to be individualistic in a classroom setting several times in relationship to the school setting. Nicholas is afraid that if he stands up for’ what he believes he will be ridiculed and ostracized. This can not and will not continue for you are in violation of law and I demand that you stop this type of teaching immediately.
Question #4 for instance asks: “A band of revolutionaries tries to overthrow the government of a foreign country.” The students are to determine how this would affect them, or Americans in general. I would ask: Is the government tyrannical, socialistic, mobocratic democracy or a constitutional republic. Without this information it is like asking a child what he thinks the weather would be like outside in Alaska and not telling him what month of the year it was. This question was asked to intimidate the child from saying that he would encourage revolutionaries under certain circumstances. I also understand that Waco, Texas was brought up by the teacher during discussion of this topic. What did this have to do with “foreign governments”? Were the illegal acts of the BATF and the FBI also discussed? Our government, we must remember was formed following a revolution by revolutionaries. Was the U. S. revolution discussed in a positive light or did it go unmentioned. We find every single question on this list offensive, leading, and highly inappropriate for impressionable thirteen-year-olds. This is at best a list for a college level critical issues course. We fail to see how these questions relate to where a country falls on a map.
These questions have an obvious agenda and that agenda is a one-world government under the United Nations. This is a direct violation of our First Amendment rights.
Question #2 was particularity offensive and upsetting to Nicholas’ mother because of her strong beliefs related to the Gulf conflict.
This letter is to put you, as Nicholas’ teacher, on notice that we will not allow this type of one world government, trust government, revolutionaries are bad indoctrination to continue as it is a direct violation of Nicholas’ civil rights and is having a harmful affect on him. I would suggest that you also inform the principal of your unlawful act and seek some sort of remedy.
Christopher Holloman Hansen
| « (21.31) Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section (21.33) » |