On 8 Sep 2004 17:00:21 -0700, concernedparent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Elizabeth
Kennedy) wrote:
>I think individual parent's wishes should be respected by our schools.
>Especially, any wishes concerning any family's religous beliefs or
>modesty concerns.
>
>I am a Christian Mom of a 9 year old daugher. Last week she started
>the fourth grade in which the elementary school begins requiring
>showers. This is much too young!
....snip...
This was cross posted to rec.**** as well as other places. Know that
Christian ****ist religious beliefs are very often oppressed and our
freedoms denied by political attacks from people who sound like this,
although perhaps this person is not one of them.
Why do people blame God's creation, the human body, for temptation and
sin when it is always a lack of supervision and a lax attitude towards
bullying, suggestive behavior, ***ual objectification and alcohol that
creates the problems, never the human body. Rather, it is the clothing
that objectifies certain body parts and suggests they are ***ual, but
if that were really true why is there no agreement about which parts
are ***ual and need to be covered? We all know the primary ***ual
organ is our brain anyway. Even the Taliban could not cover that.
My religious beliefs are that God created our human bodies and it is a
sin to cover them up in any way that indicates we are ashamed of God's
creation and it is an even greater sin to clothe children as ***
objects. Schools do not teach this; many teach the opposite.
Children of all ages and ***es should have the _option_ to spend
wholesome, natural time together in _well supervised_ activities
without the status symbols and ***ual statements clothing makes. Yes,
that would be strange - for five minutes. Then, it would teach what
real people look like, that the TV images are garbage, that we are all
human and need to respect each other's bodies, and that it is
ultimately the character of our personalities that matter.
In no way does a short shower of same-*** same-age accomplish this;
that is nothing like a ****ist experience. That is just getting clean.
You have to put your clothes right back on or be shamed. By separating
the ***es, it suggests that seeing the opposite *** **** is bad or an
excuse for ***ual disrespect. By separating age groups, it suggests
that the older and stronger are expected to take advantage of a ****
situation rather than being expected to care and protect the younger.
These are the opposite of what a ****ist experience teaches. (Still, it
is better than also forcing kids to hide in shame in individual shower
stalls or trying to wash in bathing suits.)
****ism covers the human body with respect. The experience of millions
of wholesome family ****ists worldwide shows when we teach that the
human body is natural and good and non-***ual just as is - with no
clothing - we get a respect the clothing obsessed never can, being
covered with God's natural love for us. After all, that is the only
true modesty - the modesty in our minds.
Sure, physical birkas are good ideas in the dessert where the flies
will eat you alive and the sun blister your skin, just as heavy parkas
are good ideas at the Arctic Circle, and space suits in orbit.
Appropriate clothing is im****tant. That's what a birka really is. If
not, then a birka makes a women a *** object; that can't be right.
****ist parents feel clothing is im****tant. It is protective in many
situations. No one is saying people should go around **** all the
time. Only in appropriate situations. OTOH, if there is _never_ an
appropriate situation, then the clothing stops being protective and
becomes a symbol of being ashamed of God's creation. That's sin.
Clothing at all times hides the four-fifths of child abuse which is
physical and not ***ual at all. It also hides ***ual abuse, which is
visible on children when they are not forced to wear clothes. So, who
is the clothing protecting if it is _always_ worn? Who? It is
protecting child abusers and molesters, that's who; and that may be
one purpose for some not wanting kids to be ****. People who abuse
kids don't want responsible adults to witness the marks.
The Christian Bible backs this up 100%. In every case where ****ity is
mentioned, it is the person who disrespected the human body who was
punished by God, not the **** person. The Pope even takes Christians
to task who put on the airs of puritanical snobbery with the objective
of tra****ng God's most wonderful creation, the natural human.
The human body is _not_ bad. The idea that it is bad and to be ashamed
of softens the kids up for abuse. Our society needs to get over that
and get at the real problems. One fifth of our kids are abused, mostly
by adults they know and other kids, particularly boyfriends. Most of
that goes undetected, except in ****ist settings (where parents started
prosecuting child abusers over thirty years ago, unlike others)
because people think ***ual abuse is the biggest abuse problem (it is
20%) and because we feel strangers are the likely culprits (not by a
long shot) and because we feel clothes offer safety (when they really
offer an attractive fantasy to the abuser and shame to the abused).
....snip...
>
>Conservative Christian parents (and other religions, like Muslims) are
>going to start fighting back.
Most ****ists are conservative Christians in the USA and Worldwide. As
usual, the attempt here is to hijack something good and God-given,
like the Christian and Muslim religions, and turn them into a perverse
cult of hatred and shame over God's proudest creation, ourselves. Just
look at the language "... we've been wronged ... start fighting back
.... " clearly _that_ has nothing to do with Christ.
Stuffed Tiger
|
