Here ya go. Now sexual choice is a matter for Kindergarten Activism. Tell me...what of those kindergartners who didn't sign the pledge? Mine certainly would not have. Granted, the school finally said it was inappropriate for students of this age to sign a pledge like this. But that begs the question. Is it even appropriate for children of any age to sign such a pledge?
Since when does sexual choice lifestyle get the privileged consideration for rudeness? I teach school, and I teach my students not to call anyone any name but the one their families call them. It's simple: If you wouldn't like to be called by that name, don't call others by that name. It's a matter of politeness regarding all persons, not singling out one section of society.
But this is the lesson of liberation socio-political ideology, which then dressed up Doc Martins, spiked her hair, and demanded equal rights--especially because she could control the produce of her own body. Well now she or he have that so well under their own power that dads can be moms and the rest is so confusing I can't even begin to untangle it all out. The most important lesson learned from all this is that those who have been oppressed cannot themselves be oppressors; therefore, they can demand such privileges and deal out consequences to those who don't conform.
I first saw glimmers of it when my daughter was in sixth grade. She was asked to design a coat-of-arms representing herself. She was given a piece of paper with the shield already copied onto it. She was to divide the shield into six parts, each one representing a certain aspect of herself. The top right was reserved for her "sign."
"What's my sign?" she asked me.
I pulled out her Baptism certificate and showed it to her. On it was a cross, with a shell and three drops of water. She was happy, and ran off the copy it. Knowing her teacher might have questions about it, I explained to Jane that she was a baptized child of God. Her Baptism into Christ is all she needs to keep her all her days. She doesn't need the Zodiac, and our family won't use the Zodiac to describe its members. We are members of the Body of Christ, so the cross describes us.
Jane's teacher called me regarding the project. She didn't quite understand what Jane was telling her, so she wanted to ask me. I thought that was very kind of her. But by the time we finished our conversation she was furious. No, I would not relent. Jane would not have any sort of Zodiac sign on her coat-of-arms. The cross was her sign, not anything from the Zodiac.
Now, I'm not saying Jane's teacher had ever been oppressed. I don't know if she ever actually was. Liberation socio-political ideology filtered into teaching so that the central idea of the lesson was lost for the sake of the ideology of the teacher. The Coat-of-arms was supposed to be an expression of who each child was. In my child' case, it quickly became an issue of whether or not she subscribed to the Zodiac. She'd best not be truly Christian, because that didn't conform to the teacher's idea of who she ought to be.
That's what really going on with these "pledge cards." The teacher is demanding her students conform to her image of what a polite child should be. Such a child doesn't use certain words at his age. OK, but what about overall name-calling? If the goal is to stop name-calling, then pledge cards aren't needed at all, at any age. Neither would club meeting for certain select groups, or "coming out days." The whole thing is racially bogus.