Reason #1,630,266 to reconsider sending your kids to a public school...

A friend who teaches junior high English in a public school in the Northwest sent me the following:

---------

I thought you would like to hear about a wonderful piece of reeducation happening up at my school.  All students in the district are required to provide a diversity "work sample" to demonstrate that they are culturally sensitive and non-Western enough in their outlook on life.  My school (with nearly a thousand students) will be giving a school-wide work sample to all the students at one time.  The samples we are using vary a little between the three grades, and the 8th grade one this year struck me as being over the top:

On a pre-appointed day next week all 8th grade teachers will pick one of the following words:  nigger, retard, or faggot.  We will then read a "historical" analysis (provided to us from somewhere by our school counselor) explaining the true origins of the derogatory term.  After we have enlightened our students to the true origins and meanings of the word (either nigger, faggot, or retard), we will then have a discussion with them about how wrong it is to discriminate or use derogatory language toward anyone.

Sounds like typical reeducation mish mash, right?  Why am I wasting your time with this?  Well it gets really interesting when one reads the "true" origins of the derogatory words--specifically the true origin of the word "faggot."

I am now going to quote to you directly from part of the one page handout (explaining the true origins of "faggot") that we were instructed to read to (and make copies for) the students (aged 13--14). The sheet begins with this question:  "what's the connection between a bundle of sticks and a modern-day insult?"

Amazing, I was asking myself that very question just the other day.  Here is the answer the worksheet provides, with my remarks in [brackets]:

"[T]he word "faggot"...was a neutral term, simply referring to a bundle of sticks or twigs that someone might gather for fuel...When heretics--people who opposed the teachings of the Catholic Church--were burned alive [notice the passive voice--burned by whom?  The church no doubt--couldn't have been the secular authorities--they would never do that] during the European [therefore evil] Inquisitions, the fires used to burn them were built with a "faggot."  The expression "to fry a faggot" came to mean "to be burnt alive."  Heretics were often forced to carry the "faggot" to the fire being built for them, and those who took back their anti-Catholic beliefs to avoid execution were forced to wear the design of a faggot embroidered on their sleeve, to identify them as former heretics.  "Faggot" therefore came to mean something difficult to bear.  This particular meaning grew as a sexist insult, often directed at women considered to be bad-tempered, tiresome or not respectable."

Then at the end of the page, this thoughtful analysis is provided by way of summary.  Just to make sure the kids get it:  "

A rare use of the verb form of "faggot" referred to the act of setting the accused [hmmm...no trial I take it] heretic on the fire for burning.  "To faggot" also came to mean "to recant" or take back one's statements, referring to the "faggot" design former heretics were forced to display on their clothing [get it...just like the Nazis....the Catholics are really the Nazis and the homosexuals are really the Jews--get it, kids? It's the Diary of Anne Frank all over again]....Some people [at least 2 or 3 guys] believe that current usage of the term "faggot" comes specifically from the history of burning heretics, suggesting that LGBT [the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community--notice the sheet doesn't explain this term--it either assumes the students know it, or hopes students will ask their teacher so the concept can be explained to the whole class in-depth] people or people perceived to be LGBT were included in the condemned....it is clear that "faggot" is the product of a long history of violence and sexism, and carries the pain of that history even when it is used as a general insult."

This just goes to show that the only group you can malign with impunity is the Catholic Church.  Needless to say I am writing a letter summarizing my objections on this "diversity" work sample to our principal.  In the public school's well meaning socially engineered rush to make every group feel normal and tolerated, we seem to have inadvertently allowed some anti-Catholic bias to seep through.

--------

I did a little searching on the web and — lo and behold! — it would appear that not only is the history of the word "faggot" that is given above not true (no surprise), it seems to have been applied to male homosexuals by (surprise) other homosexuals! The Straight Dope website has this to say:

The British continued to use the words fag and faggot as nouns, verbs and adjectives right through the early 20th century, never applying it to homosexuals at any time. To fag or to be a fag was a common term in British schools from the late 1700s and referred to a lower classman who performed chores for upperclassmen. While this term was also in vogue at Harvard in the first half of the 19th century, it died out by the mid-1800s in the U.S., leaving it in use only in England. Nineteenth century Britons also heard "faggot" used in reference to an ill-tempered woman, i.e., a ball-buster, a battleaxe, a shrew. That meaning of the term continued into the early 20th century, and the usage was gradually applied to children as well as women. The relationship, if any, between faggot-as-bundle-of-sticks and faggot-as-shrewish-woman is unknown.

The first known published use of the word faggot or fag to refer to a male homosexual appeared in 1914 in the U.S. It referred to a homosexual ball where the men were dressed in drag and called them "fagots (sissies)." Ernest Hemingway, in The Sun Also Rises (1926), included the line, "You're a hell of a good guy, and I'm fonder of you than anybody on earth. I couldn't tell you that in New York. It'd mean I was a faggot." A 1921 cite says, "Androgynes [are] known as 'fairies,' 'fags,' or 'brownies.'"

George Chauncey, in his excellent 1994 work Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, says that the terms fairy, faggot, and queen were used by homosexuals to refer to men who were ostentatiously effeminate. Homosexuals who were not as showy referred to themselves as "queer" in the first decades of the 20th century. But the general public mainly called homosexuals "fairies." If you were in London in the 1920s through the 1940s and used the term "fag," the man in the street might have offered you a cigarette, and quite possibly that would have been the case with many Americans at the time. [emphasis added]

So: homosexuals called other homosexuals a word that is now considered insulting to homosexuals, so certain homosexuals now blame the Catholic Church for the word. And now people not only believe it, it is taught as part of "diversity education" in public schools. Yet another example of how every ill in the world can ultimately be blamed on the Catholic Church, if only you lie and lie again. And again. And again.

Comments

[Jackson]

"Oh wonder, how many goodly creatures are there here, how beautious mankind is, oh Brave New World that has such people in it."

-Shakespeare, The Tempest

[Kevin Jones]

Is it me, or do public school cirricula and efforts at making everybody diverse and tolerant resemble contemporary Unitarianism? Are such schools minor seminaries for Unitarian proselytism?

[M. Jordan Lichens]

I'm sure they were just getting to how the schools have a lack of funds due to the Jesuit tunnells from DC to the Vatican and those men in black stealing all the money while burning a few heretics on the way.

[Tope]

Hunh?

I think you read way too much into this exercise. Apart from your comments, there's no reason for anyone to read those paragraphs and come away with a prejudiced view of Catholicism. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Tope]

Hunh?

I think you read way too much into this exercise. Apart from your comments, there's no reason for anyone to read those paragraphs and come away with a prejudiced view of Catholicism. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Jackson]

Yet his comments precisely show that there ARE reasons for anyone to read those paragraphs and come away with a prejudiced view of Catholicism. Might you already hold such a view, Tope, and yet be unable to detect it? Have you become like the fish who, upon being told he lives in water, replies, "Water? What water???" so immersed is he in his mode of being that he can conceive of no other?

[Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm]

If I were a Martian, with no knowledge of earth, and I read that "educational" tract, I'd be convinced immediately that the Catholic Church was evil. I agree with Tope, M. Jordan Lichens shows his own anti-Catholicism!

[Cristina A. Montes]

And what about the fact that, Carl's research showed that the origin of the term "faggot" is totally different from what's written in the tract? Assuming I don't detect anti-Catholic bias from reading the tract alone, and assuming that it won't give me an anti-Catholic bias, what am I to think after finding out that the history of the word "faggot" is totally different from the origin of the word "faggot" in the tract? Either that the writer of the tract maliciously twisted the facts or he's grossly irresponsible in doing sloppy research.

[Jackson]

Excellent point, Cristina.

[G Golem]

The term has a benign parallel with pagan origins. In Italian, the term "finnochio" (fennel) is a slang for male homosexual. The usage derives from the legend of Titan Prometheus, who stole fire and gave it to the human race. The fire was kept in a hearth, presumably by female Titans since tending the fire and cooking was women's work. To gain access Prometheus dressed as a woman and stole the fire in dried fennel stalks (a form of kindling) and brought it to Earth. The bundle of sticks became associated with a man dressed like a woman. Hence, a cross-dressing male is responsible for human civilization.

No educational group should promote folk etymologies- especially at the expense of another group.

However, the Church is responsible for calling homosexuals "sodomites," equating consensual sex with gang rape. How many burnings and murders has this caused?

As for forcing heretics to wear characteristic clothing, that's a pretty minor issue. The major historical issue is that the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 mandated the Jews in Christian Europe had to wear characteristic clothing, some countries implemented this as a yellow cloth badge. So, the Church is undeniably responsible for setting the precedent for the Nazis.

[Sandra Miesel]

But the material supplied to the students describes the wrong kind of badge on clothing. The san benito imposed by the Spanish Inquisition had images of devils and flames on it. The canned information betrays in various ways a lack of knowledge about what the Inquisitions (note plural) were and what they did. It's part of the old Black Legend.

And by the way, civil governments, not the Church, mposed special clothing requirements on prostitutes in the Midde Ages. It was all part of being able to place people in their correct status group.

[G Golem]

Sandra writes:
And by the way, civil governments, not the Church, mposed special clothing requirements on prostitutes in the Midde Ages. It was all part of being able to place people in their correct status group.

In a church that actively propagated the Blood Libel, forcing Jews to wear characteristic clothing functioned as a means of marking them for persecution, including murder.

Sandra, you can have it either of two ways. Either your forbears in the Faith had room-temperature IQs and were unable to predict the obvious results of this regulation, or they were proto-nazis.

[Carl Olson]

Mr. Lichens was being sarcastic. He's a devout Catholic. In fact, a former Evangelical turned Catholic. I know this because I count him as a friend...

"However, the Church is responsible for calling homosexuals 'sodomites,' equating consensual sex with gang rape. How many burnings and murders has this caused?" Say what? Since when did "sodomite" refer only to "gang rapists" and not to those who engage in sodomy, that is, "anal copulation of one male with another"??

[G Golem]

The crime in the sodom account was attempted gang rape. By referring to all male homosexuals as "sodomites" the Chruch equated them to the mob that allegedly tried to rape angels in Sodom. It's morally the same as calling Jews "Christ-killers" because of the allegation that some of their ancestors were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. As recently as last year the Vatican has reaffirmed that the myth was about homosexual sex. The Church never changes its tactics, only its victims.

I say this as a Jesuit-educated devoutly-ex-cradle Catholic.

[M. Jordan Lichens]

Thanks for the defense Carl, and yes I was indeed being sarcastic. I guess it's true what they say, a society that becomes satire no longer understands a man who tries to satire it. Anywhoo, I was attempting to point out that the rewriting of history by groups like the ones who put out this manual and the demonization of the Church leads to some strange thinking that goes beyond mere disagreement to outright paranoia. If either Tope or Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm need further evidence that I'm not Anti-Catholic, take a peek at my site.

[TE McCarthy]

G. Golem, re: your appendix of "Jesuit-educated:" the last time I checked, the Society taught logic, not merely rhetoric. Do your educators and fellow Dons of Loyola the service of marshalling facts first, prior to making inflammatory statements. Our collective reputations deserve better. Thanks. AMDG.

[Carl Olson]

"By referring to all male homosexuals as 'sodomites' the Church equated them to the mob that allegedly tried to rape angels in Sodom."

Your argument, then, is that gang rape was the sin, not homosexual acts. But the term "sodomy" has always referred to "homosexual acts," specifically anal sex, whether involving two men, twenty men, or a hundred men. Webster's Dictionary defines sodomy as follows:

1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex

And the American Heritage dictionary defines it as:

Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

The bottom line is that the Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful and disordered. Feel free to disagree with Church teaching (as you obviously do). But saying that this is the same thing as anti-Semitism is simply a poor and obvious attempt to play the politics of victimology.

[Gene Branaman]

I ran across the same revisionist definition of "sodomy" used by G Golem earlier today for the first time in another venue. Seems it's an attempt to make homosex more acceptable by redefining words have been around & carried the same meaining since antiquity. That way, blame can be laid & charges of *hate speech* claimed. (Onward, Victim Mentality!)

[G Golem]

Carl, I'm making a reasoned analogy. I'm saying that the term "sodomite" because of its universal association with the Sodom myth _connotes__ more than mere homosexual conduct. It connotes (as opposed to denotes) gang-rape; every Christian knows this because every Christian knows that the term comes from the Sodom myth. If the Church merely were interested in relating the activity to the claim that it is sinful in the Bible it could have coined a term not related to an incident of gang rape, but that wouldn't have the same propaganda value, would it?

By relating an identity directly to an evil legend, the Church is doing to gays exactly what it did to Jews in calling them "Christ-Killers." By definition, Jews don't believe in Christ as a messiah, but not of the Jews currently alive have even met him. Similarly, no living homosexual has ever even been to Sodom, and therefore, can't have been associated with this probably mythical crime.

As for Jesuits and logic, the Church teaches "natural law philosophy" an endeavor that is completely incompatible with formal logic.

[G Golem]

As for championing "victimology" what could be more absurd than any sort of Christian complaining about that. What-else does the crucifix represent other than victimology?

[Jackson]

G Golem, why are you here? Do you see yourself as an ambassador of truth sent to enlighten us unwashed protozoan philistines? Several years ago, I too believed that I had such a mission. You should have seen me in the Christian usenet groups. Horrible. Long before I rejected nihilism, however, I recognized that my mission was ridiculous and, at any rate, futile. When will you realize that your crusade is ridiculous and futile?

[Carl Olson]

"It connotes (as opposed to denotes) gang-rape; every Christian knows this because every Christian knows that the term comes from the Sodom myth."

Every Christian minus one. I've been a Christian for 36 years, attended an Evangelical Bible college, have an MTS from a Catholic university, own around two thousand works of theology, and have never heard the "sodomy connotes gang-rape" argument/connection. Which means, I believe it is safe to say, that very few people know of the supposed connection that you claim is so obvious.

"Similarly, no living homosexual has ever even been to Sodom, and therefore, can't have been associated with this probably mythical crime."

Uh, okay. This ignores the point that the Church does not think that homosexual acts are wrong because they may have occured in Sodom, but because they are contrary to nature and God's law. No one with half a brain thinks that someone who is homosexual is a gang-rapist, nor do I believe that this was even the case centuries ago.

"As for championing 'victimology' what could be more absurd than any sort of Christian complaining about that. What-else does the crucifix represent other than victimology?"

The crucifix represents a victim — an innocent man who was murdered. Your complaints blatantly make use of the politics of victimology; you sound very much like an angry man making baseless accusations. Simple logic reveals how different the two positions are.

[Cristina A. Montes]

Uhm, make that "every Christian minus two." In all my 29 years of existence as a cradle Catholic, this is the first time I've encountered the "sodomy=gang rape" idea. I obviously missed out on something; after all, in the same way that the modern Jews whom we Christians allegedly accuse to be Christ-killers have never even met Christ, I was not alive yet when the Church allegedly started using the term "sodomy" to refer to gang rape in an attempt to demonize homosexuals.

[Cristina A. Montes]

Oh, I might be wrong, but from what I know of the Sodom story, it was not just the gang-rape incident that made God punish Sodom and which immortalized Sodom for immorality. The city had been known all along for immorality. God had been wanting to punish them all along as seen from the episode when Abraham tried to intercede for the city and asked God to save it if there were at least 10 good men there.

(What luck! I have a copy of the Bible with me right now. "Then the Lord said: 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin is so grave." is in Genesis 18: 20; Abraham interceding for Sodom is in the rest of Genesis 18; while the "gang rape incident" is in Chapter 19 of Genesis.)

[TE McCarthy]

Natural law philosophy is completely incompatible with formal logic? G. Golem, you are being disingenuous; either you were educated by the Jesuits in name only, or you are pursuing your own outré agenda, regardless of truth, attaching to others’ more credible coattails. Please refrain from trading selfishly on the Society's reputation, denigrating it in the process. Your educators and fellow alums really do deserve better. Thanks.

[Mark Brumley]

Golly. See what happens when you don't check-in here regularly.

[Carl Olson]

Mark: Ain't nothin' but a bit of homophobi--er, sodomiphobia run amuck. Y'all know how nasty and mean we Catholics are when it comes to such matters...