49 Responses

1. You wrote that Cymbrowitz “wants to force Yeshivas to teach the concept of two mommies and two daddies to 5-year-old children!!!”

   I understand that this is what you are claiming, but was wondering if you would like to substantiate it.

   Not that I know anything about this candidate, but your claim sounds quite difficult to believe.

2. Assemblyman Cymbrowitz voted for the “Dignity for All Students Act” which was signed into law this summer. In the name of reducing “discrimination,” all New York schools, with no exemption in the statute for private schools, will be required starting July 2012 to teach, from kindergarten and up, “tolerance” “respect” and “sensitivity” to other other religions, religious practices, and sexual orientations (along with race, weight, nationality, height, sex and gender). See analysis at “Guardians Report,” http://www.zehjournal.com.

3. I looked at the bill and did not see anything resembling what you described.

   http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/090810-DignityStudentsAct.html

4. Just started reading it, so I can’t tell you what the rest of it says, but
   S 17. APPLICATION. NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL:
   1. APPLY TO PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
   seems to indicate that it might not apply to yeshivos.

5. to commentators 3 & 4.
   The law passed this summer did two things. It created as new Article to the Education law called “The Dignity for All Students Act.” That article only applies to private schools.
   However, the law ALSO amends a pre-existing law in A DIFFERENT ARTICLE of the Education law, Section 801(a) “instruction in civility, citizenship and character education,” which is located in Article 17 of the Education law. Therefore the exemption you quoted from S 17 of Article 3 does not create an exemption for Article 17. See http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@LLEDN+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=53175106+&TARGET=VIEW
   Please let me know if I’m not reading this correctly.

6. CORRECTION, the education law was amended to create a new ARTICLE 2 called the Dignity for All Students Act. Article 2 does not apply to private schools. But the “instructions in civility etc.” located in S 801-a is a part of ARTICLE 17, and there is no specific statutory exemption for private schools.
   New York State has thus redefined the meaning of the words “tolerance,” “respect for others” and “dignity,” as a matter of law to include “awareness and sensitivity” for “people of different religions, religious practices, sexual orientations, sexes and genders.”
   As a result, people of faith who believe toeivas are ussar now hold opinions that are considered legally intolerant, disrespectful of others and against human dignity.

7. You all need to understand that anything that is defined as part of “Civil Rights” legislation applies to alol schools, without any exemptions allowed.

   “Civil Rights” always supercede other rights, including religious rights.

   That’s why the strateguists in the Radical Toeva groups chose to use the “Civil rights” laws as their vehicle for forcing Toeva rights. Unfortunately, they were successful.

8. Sorry, but I’m still not understanding.

   First the claim was that this bill would “force Yeshivas to teach the concept of two mommies and two daddies to 5-year-old children!!!”

   I pointed out that there is nothing in the bill that says any such thing.

   Unless I’m misreading your comments, it now seems that you have conceded that I was correct.

   Your new claim is that it does not force teachers to teach five-year-olds anything, but that it uses language that says that “people of faith who believe toeivas are ussar now hold opinions that are considered legally intolerant, disrespectful of others and against human dignity.”

   I do not agree that the bill forces anyone to say or believe anything. All it does is say that children who are different, for any reason, should not be bullied. All that means is that teachers and students should not make nasty, teasing, and bullying remarks. This does not mean that the Torah’s laws can no longer be taught, only that it be done with dignity and without personal attacks.

   In any event, at least we both agree that the author of this post has distorted the issue and written an absolute lie.

   As far as I know, that is most definitely an aveira.

   (Shekker, geneivas da’as, motzi shem ra against yidden who support this candidate, etc.)

9. Response to Mr. Shlomo2: The DASA law that Assemblyman Cymbrowitz voted for requires all schools, without an exception for private schools, to teach “tolerance,” “respect” and “dignity” for people of all “sexual orientations,” from kindergarten age and up. What part of this do you not understand. Its troubling that you would claim get morally outraged against a frum candidate who speaks out against this vicious law without even acknowledging this is a serious threat for our yeshivas.

10. Here’s the language.
    Perhaps I don’t read as well as you do, as I don’t see where it says what you claim it does.

    To help provide a safe and civil educational environment, the Dignity for All Students Act requires school districts to:

    * Revise their codes of conduct and adopt policies intended to create a school environment free from harassment and discrimination;
    * Adopt guidelines to be used in school training programs to raise awareness and sensitivity of school employees to these issues and to enable them to respond appropriately; and
    * Designate at least one staff member in each school to be trained in non-discriminatory instructional and counseling methods and handling human relations.

11. For the record, Mr. Shlomo2 in comment 10 has again read the wrong section of the statute. He quoted from Article 2 of the Education law that only applies to public schools. Article 17 makes no exemption for private schools, and was amended this summer as follows.

    “Section 801-a of the education law, as added by chapter 181 of the laws of 2000, is amended to read as follows:
    “S 801-a. Instruction in civility, citizenship and character education…
    “FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “TOLERANCE,” “RESPECT FOR OTHERS” AND “DIGNITY” SHALL INCLUDE AWARENESS AND SENSITIVITY TO DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT AND CIVILITY IN THE RELATIONS OF PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RACES, WEIGHTS, NATIONAL ORIGINS, ETHNIC GROUPS, RELIGIONS, RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, MENTAL OR PHYSICAL ABILITIES, SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS, GENDERS, AND SEXES.”
    This dictates that all schools must legitimize the “sexual orientation” of toeiva by discussing it with kindergartners. This makes plain the fact that advocates for toeiva are not content to be left alone but insist on indoctrinating their philosophy on children, even in the private schools.

12. I guess I’m just kind of dense, but I still don’t see anything about indoctrinating kindergarteners.

    All it says is the school atmosphere should be such that children not harass and abuse those who are different.

    It says nothing about indoctrinating them as to the equal legitimacy of to’eiva. Nor does it require that children even be taught about it.

    A generic message to the kids: “Do Not Bully” Do Not Harass” children who are different than yourselves would suffice. (BTW, why isn’t that something that we should be teaching our children in any event?)

    You can capitalize all you want, but hat will not make the statute say something other than what it does.

13. To Mr. Shlomo2: Many states have similar statues, what is controversial about the DASA is the “enumerated” provisions, that is, a specific list of categories of people of whom we are required to teach respect. Yes we should teach our children to be tolerant and respectful of others. I trust our classes in good midos, mussar and chassidus already cover that. But we do not need the state of New York telling us to teach anything about other religions, religious practices, or toeiva.

    The argument that this is only about “preventing harassment” or stopping bullying is a smokescreen. This statute dictates forcing toeiva and avodah zara into our private schools. (PS the first line of the amended section 801-a specifies that it will be taught from kindergartner to 12th grade.) Hashem should protect His tamimim and uproot the sheker that dresses itself up like rachmonos.

14. You wrote:
    “This statute dictates forcing toeiva and avodah zara into our private schools.”

    You can repeat that statement all you want, but you have not yet demonstrated that the bill does any such thing.

    The bill says that children should be taught to not bully or harass for any reason. Period.

    True, it expands the examples of what children should not harass other children about, but that’s about it. “Do Not Harass Children WHo Are Different Than Yourselves” will suffice.

    Nothing there about having to tell them about to’eivah or avodah zora.

15. In addition to the challenge I just wrote, which is that you have not demonstrated that the bill requires anyone to teach anyone else about to’eivah or avodoh zora, I have a question for you.

    Let’s say that the hanhola of a yeshiva decided to admit a child who has two mommies or two daddies.

    Would you think that children should have the right to harass and torment this child who the honhola saw fit to accept?

16. Mr. Hayon claimed that certain Rabbis endorsed him. It seems that he may have mistaken support for endorse which is clealy different. It seems there are Rabbis who did not want their names to be used by MR. Hayon, but he did and thereby may have misled the community. “You should not place an obstacle in front of a blind person”.

    The community voted for Mr. Hayon based on possibly false claims. He must ask forgiveness. Thankfully he lost.

17. I don’t know anything about the candidate’s having been imprecise when saying that certain Rabbis endorsed him, but it does seem that in his letter to YWN above, he was being more than a bit imprecise.

    In “Cymbrowitz’s case, he wants to force Yeshivas to teach the concept of two mommies and two daddies to 5-year-old children!!!”

18. first of all there are 2 different bills that are referred here
    one is which is was Joseph referred to
    http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A03261&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Text=Y

    and the second is this which is this which doesn’t have a private/religious school exception (not that this isn’t assur in public schools) which in the future can try force Yeshivas to abide by this law
    http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A03661&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

    and if you think that these type of legation’s can’t be used “to teach the concept of two mommies and two daddies to 5-year-old children” please see this
    http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/images/stories/pdfs/final_antibullying_lit_list.pdf

    if you chose not to except the fact that this may happen I suggest you get your head out of the sand.

19. Reply to divri hayamim:

    If Mr. Hayon referred to the bill that clearly had a private/religious school exception as you state, why did he not reveal this exception to the community? This may have resulted in a false impression of the other candidate. Our community must be vigilante against those who mislead us. False allegations against a fellow Jew is obviously a great sin.
    Those who believe that a Frum man is always honest, must also take their head out of the sand. If Mr. Hayon knew of this exception, he must ask forgiveness from this other candidate and from those who voted for him because they believed him to be truthful.

20. Reply to divri hayamim:

    I just read the bill, which was also voted for by Sheldon Silver.

    Section 17 – nothing in this article shall 1)apply to private, religious or denominational educational institutions.

    Shame on those who misled our community. They must ask for forgiveness.

21. Thanks for the link.

    We started with the claim that the bill will
    “force Yeshivas to teach the concept of two mommies and two daddies to 5-year-old children!!!”

    It now seems that the accusers have conceded that there is absolutely nothing in the bill of the sort.

    Now they are saying that instead of looking at the mandates of the bill, we should look at at a “recommended reading list” submitted by parents to a California public school district for their own children.

    So, you’re saying that this reading list will go from being “recommended” in California to being “forced down the throats” of yiddishe kinderlach in NY?

22. “nothing in this article shall 1)apply to private, religious or denominational educational institutions.”
    do you know what an article means?
    the bill did a few things including adding a new article in which there is the line you quoted.
    then it amended a previous law (sec 801A) as you can clearly see here has no religious exemption
    http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$EDN801-A$$@TXEDN0801-A+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=53175106+&TARGET=VIEW

    I just read the bill, which was also voted for by Sheldon Silver.
    and that is supposed to mean something Sheldon Silver also voted for gay marrige (and if you think that’s not a problem there’s no point in even bothering with you)(remember how strong the avara of chillull hashem is)
    http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A07732

    the point of showing what was done in California is to show what a similar legislation did there.

    “Shame on those who misled our community. They must ask for forgiveness.”
    I’m asking forgiveness not for what you said but for not doing enough to spread this fact earlier and hope all yirea shamiem will forgive me.

23. You seem to be confusing what is mandated through this legislation and what appears in a recommended reading list.

    True, the legislation applies to religious schools.
    But it does not mandate anything like what you say it does.

    Do you understand the difference between something being mandated by a state gov’t and something being recommended to a public school by a group of its own parents?

24. Reply to divri hayamim:

    Please read what you just wrote. You agree with me. You confirmed that the exception I cited was added to the bill.

    Your continued defense of your position seems to suspend common sense. The unfortunate outcome is that our community may believe you and draw incorrect conclusions.
    “Do not place an obstacle in front of a blind person”. Do not mislead our community. I respect your position. Respect our need for the truth without exageration and inference.

25. listen the law says
    “The regents shall determine how to incorporate such component in existing curricula and the commissioner shall promulgate any regulations needed to carry out such determination of the regents. ”

    this is giving the power to decide the curriculum to an unelected (by us that is) officials if they want they could make that list of books similar to what I showed you from Alameda

    what is so hard to understand that this bill gives authority that such a thing can happen and anyone who supported such a thing that could lead to that is problematic.
    Not to mention the fact that even if this would bill would be done in the most kosher way possible it would still force kindergarten kids to learn about this from a perceptive that will make a roshem that would take away his from his yirahs chait and can potentially lead to someone years later may chas vishalom be over on a yahrog vial yavor.
    please look at these things to understand what really was going on there
    http://www.alamedaconcernedparents.com/background
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2CaRf2MQK8&feature=player_embedded#!

26. “If Mr. Hayon referred to the bill that clearly had a private/religious school exception as you state, why did he not reveal this exception to the community? This may have resulted in a false impression of the other candidate. Our community must be vigilante against those who mislead us. False allegations against a fellow Jew is obviously a great sin.”

    no Mr. Hayon referred to a bill that openly included parochial schools (yeshivas) but that bill is not law the other bill is now law (come July 1, 2012) next time someone posts a link, before you comment read the link

    here’s the quote
    THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, TRUSTEES, PRINCIPAL OR OTHER PERSON IN CHARGE OF EVERY PUBLIC, PRIVATE AND PAROCHIAL SCHOOL

    here’s link to the definition of parochial school
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=1Hn&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3A+parochial+school&aq=0&aqi=l1g2&aql=&oq=parochial+school+d&gs_rfai=

27. Alameda County is the most liberal county in the United States. (San Francisco)

    Are the private and parochial schools there being forced to add these books to the curriculum? Has that happened?

    Yes, I know.
    Well, it COULD happen that would force the parochial schools there to teach this. (Even though there’s no precedent for such a thing happening.)

    And once we’ve entertained the possibility that it COULD happen in Alalmeda County, it COULD then spread to the rest of California.

    And then it COULD happen in NY.

    However, we’re pretty far ahead of what you fist claimed, which was that this bill already DOES this. And not only that, but anyone who voted for it shares this devious agenda:

    In your words,

    “He wants to force Yeshivas to teach the concept of two mommies and two daddies to 5-year-old children!!!”

    I really suggest that instead of obsessing over irrational, unfounded, and uninformed fears from YouTube, that you instead open up a chumash and a Rambam and learns the laws of geneivas da’as, m’dvar shekker tirhak, lashon hora, etc.

28. listen this law gives them the power to do that. Before this law they had no power to that. So now if the New york State Regents wants to make such a curriculum in New York

    how something from Montana (granted this isn’t based on bullying but the indoctrination factor is still there
    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-15/us/montana.sex.education_1_school-board-meeting-sexual-orientation-teaching-students?_s=PM:US

    and how about ABC news
    “The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network says its anti-bullying campaign was created with input from educators, psychologists and even members of religious organizations, and its goals are distinct from its support of same-sex marriage. The group, however, does not deny that there is mention of same-sex marriage in some of its anti-bullying literature.”
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/school-anti-bullying-programs-push-gay-agenda-christian/story?id=11527833&page=3
    And how about something from Minnesota reported by the
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130837802

    On a different note before you tell me to look up the Rambam (speak to a talmud chacham on the irony of what you told me of opening up specifically the Rambam on m’dvar shekker) on m’dvar shekker tirhak you should know his position on it.

29. Where does this NY law give them the power to impose a certain reading list on ANY school, let alone a parochial one?

    Where does the Alemeda County law give them the power to impose a certain reading list on a parochial school? You’re telling me that the Catholic schools in Alameda County are currently “forcing this down their kindergartners’ throats”?

30. read the law

    http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$EDN801-A$$@TXEDN0801-A+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=53175106+&TARGET=VIEW

    “The regents shall determine how to incorporate such component in existing curricula and the commissioner shall promulgate any regulations needed to carry out such determination of the regents. ”

    Alameda County wasn’t for private schools but the New York law doesn’t have an exemption for private schools. The point of the Alemeda County law is to show you what type of curriculum could come from the bill.

    Now lets put them both together the book list from Alemeda County could potentially become the New York State curriculum and since there is no exemption for private/parochial schools therefore it could become the law that Yeshivas in New York would have to teach what was taught in Alemeda County.

31. To Shlomo 2 and Pinchas5,

    I received a phone call with a request to respond to your comments. You must either be in a complete state of denial, or you purposefully want to hurt our children.
    I ran a strong campaign to protect our community from legislation that will hurt our children. Your responses demonstrate either a lack of understanding in NY State and federal law or your refusal to do any serious fact checking. You simply provide arguments without any sources to support your claim. You attack the example and ignore the real issue at hand. When the Gemara says in short, “Kol Haposel, Bemumo Posel”, it is referring to people like you that make baseless accusations without fully researching the issue at hand (like a simple e-mail).

    Now to respond to your comments.

    1) While I did not provide any sources in my letter to A.S., you could have simply read my campaign website to find all the answers and references to your arguments.

    2) The letter was referring to A03261

    3) A simple e-mail, and I would have responded with a PDF copy of all the signatures, including Rabbi Yisroel Belsky.

    4) A03261 includes private schools with no religious exemption.

    5) The US Constitution and the NYS Constitution does not protect religious freedom the way we think it does. Read the article on my website called “A Spiritual Holocaust in America?”

    Elections are over. The next step is not to throw hate amongst ourselves, but rather to notify all sponsors of A03261 our strong and united opposition to this terrible legislation.

    Sincerely,
    Joseph Hayon

32. Reply to divri hayamim:

    You write “No Mr. Hayon referred to a bill that openly included parochial schools(yeshivas) but that bill is not law”. Again you suspend common sense. False impressions of were apread for something that is not even law! I wonder how many in our community read the bill or the law.

    They relied on the honest testimony of others and were misled. Shame on those who for their own personal gain
    give FALSE TESTIMONY. I pray that they have the strength and morality to ask forgiveness from those that they hurt.
    Remember, service to Hashem also continues after the service.

    Good shabbos to all.

33. Mr. Hayon:

    I did not notice that your response addressed any of my points. (I was looking for facts and logic, not personal attacks, innuendo, and hysteria.)

    Please take a deep breath and then try again.

34. Mr. Hayon:

    I read the essay you referred to.
    All it does is make the same claim, that the bill is

    “forcing religious private schools to teach 5 year-old-children to accept, as perfectly moral, the idea of two men dating and marrying, the schools would be forced to teach this, or face losing tax exempt status for violating public policy.”

    Please substantiate how the bill forces any school to teach anything other than to not bully those who are different.

    Let’s say that the hanhola of a yeshiva decided to admit a child who has two mommies or two daddies.

    Would you think that children should have the right to harass and torment this child who the honhola saw fit to accept?

35. “Let’s say that the hanhola of a yeshiva decided to admit a child who has two mommies or two daddies.”

    first of all the only way a yeshiva could except a kid like and remain a yeshiva would be if he was old enough to realize his parent’s and the others rishus and either no one knew of it or he openly denounced it. Second it is not so much the bullying part but this line “PROMOTE ATTITUDES OF TOLERANCE AND ACCEPTANCE.” that causes the problem of certain people who could decide what would qualify for those words may have the attitude that you can see from all that I showed you and if you would of had any knowledge on this subject would know that “anyone who doesn’t except toavah marriage is intolerant and their for would interpret to mean teach about toavah marriage.

    also I am noticing you keep repeating the same question even though it was answered. IF you have something new to say that’s one thing (and what I’m about to say doesn’t apply but if you from here on out ask a question that’s all ready been answered then I would

    Then I would either you aren’t able to understand it in which case I would apply the pasuk in mishle 26-4 as understood in mesectas shabbos 30b.
    ,you chose to not be able to understand it (denial), or you understand it and just want to be a Nuisance either way I would see no point in continuing to keep repeating the answer in different words so there may be a chance you would understand it.

36. Actually, I’m not aware that either of my questions were answered, including the one you replied to above. All you did above is say that it can’t happen. (Let’s say the kid’s parents are divorced, the mother is 100% frum, and the father got married to another man. Or the mother has custody, she has a female partner, and the frum kid with the frum father is caught in the middle.)

    There have been several replies, none of which dealt with the question factually or substantively. What I heard instead was hysterics and conspiracy theories. Nothing pointing to a black and white mandate “forcing religious private schools to teach 5 year-old-children to accept, as perfectly moral, the idea of two men dating and marrying, the schools would be forced to teach this, or face losing tax exempt status for violating public policy.”

    As I said all the mandate does is that schools must see to it that chikdren who are different should not be bullied, with no exceptions. That’s the only thing the schools need to say.

    Period. Schools need not go into detail or give any specifics, neither about fatness, same-sexness, nor stupidness.

    You think otherwise, prove it.

37. 1. Listen there is a BIG difference between the kid and the rasha parent the legislation is on tolerance for the parent not the kid.

    hysterics and conspiracy theories
    2. except is has happened elsewhere with similar legislation in public schools and the only difference here is that this would apply to private schools. These are the facts if you chose to be naive and believe that such things can’t be done or wont be done you really need to look at what the liberals actually want to happen. If their is a law that gives ability and a group that has a will then even if doesn’t happen immediately the threat is always their if you don’t stop when you still have a chance because when the threat is actualized it will be to late.

38. The legislation is “on” not to bully children who are different.

    As for your second point, “You really need to look at what the liberals actually want to happen.”

    More conspiracy theories and speculation.

    In any event, by telling me that it’s all about what the liberals are planning to do, you are conceding that nothing in the bill mandates anything of the sort. There is no mandate for a required reading list and no mandate to discuss same sex marriage, let alone “force it down the throats” of kindergartners.

    Here’s a tip: You’ll be a lot more credible at achieving your goals if you lay off the hysteria and stick to the facts.

39. “Here’s a tip: You’ll be a lot more credible at achieving your goals if you lay off the hysteria and stick to the facts.”

    listen you fool they tried to put this trash in to NYC public school curriculum before.
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Jg8hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=o3YFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6670,2285021&dq=heather+has+two+mommies+new+york+public+school&hl=en

    they now have achieved a bill that gives them the ability to so. The thing I showed you from Alalmeda County happened because of because of a law that only said this
    “(6) Professional education staff who are sensitive to the needs of pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.”
    http://www.bullypolice.org/ca_law.html

    Both New York State laws the (the pending one and the one that is already law)in question say the word tolerance and both have the ability to apply to private schools. Why should I think their not going to use it like they tried previously in NYC public schools. The bill that is law does have a mandate to be decided by the regents. The way your arguing now, show that if you would have seen the California law you would have argued what the big deal I suppose you also think Iran isn’t pursuing Nuclear Weapons.

    and finally even if the best interpretation comes from this bill it would still require mentioning sexual orientations (especially with out this yumas part or even the issur all together) in kindergarten and if you think that’s not a problem then there is something wrong with you even with out your being one of the most Naive people I have ever dealt with.

    And what I said wasn’t a conspiracy theories if someone intendeds to do something and then does what worked elsewhere to actually implement what they want then what do you think they did that for. The fact is that the text of the bill was on the papers so there was no trickery involved so all that weren’t a fool like you would be able to see the facts.

40. I’m sorry you think I’m a fool and I’m sorry that you feel the need to attack someone personally.

    I guess that’s what happens when someone calls your bluff and tries to get you to substantiate your claims.

    I’m done responding.

41. Reply to divri hayamim:

    It seems that Schlomo 2 has exposed your misleading tirades. Personally attacking someone does not defend your statements. Once confronted you reach for double speak. Before you were confronted, you claimed this material WILL be taught in our yeshivas. Now that your position has been questioned, you revert to it MAY be taught. Please make up your mind. Until such time that you do, limit your speech which may be a harm to our community.
    To think that a Torah Jew needs to mislead in order to get votes for their platform or candidate is shameful. The community benefits when we are united in our service to Hashem and the proper behavior to our fellow man. Calling Schlomo 2 a fool is unwarranted and you must ask him for forgiveness.

42. listen both of you

    fact 1. A law was passed that doesn’t exclude private schools that requires teaching about sexual orientations in schools giving power to decide the curriculum to the regents.

    fact 2. Laws that on face value aren’t as bad as the one that passed have been you used for to bring Toavah marriage in to the classrooms.

    fact 3. There already was an a attempt to bring Toavah marriage in to the classrooms in NYC.

    fact 4. even with the best interpretation of this bill by the regents it would require to teach about sexual orientations in kindergarten.

    and since you think I’m being delusional

    I ask you which of these laws would you prefer if you had to pick one

    law 1. Professional education staff who are sensitive to the needs of pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.”

    or law 2. For the purposes of this section, “tolerance,” “respect for others” and “dignity” shall include awareness and sensitivity to discrimination or harassment and civility in the relations of people of different races, weights, national origins, ethnic groups, religions, religious practices, mental or physical abilities, sexual orientations, genders, and sexes.

    because law 1 led to toavah marriage in the class rooms

    just so you know by calling him a fool (which I’m not sure if should have said (my reasons are because this is public sight in regard to readership but I wouldn’t be embarrassing him publicly because I no one knows who he is) even if it’s true) I was daning him lichav zichus because he is either a fool (by God lo alayinu or by choice) or a chote es harabim.

43. “Fact” 1 and “Fact” 4 are not facts.

    Nothing in the bill requires that teachers say anything more than: “Do not bully children who are different, no matter what it is that makes them different. No exceptions whatsoever.”

44. read this law and tell me how their not facts (this is what that comment I just said was was referring to) I repeat there are 2 laws
    http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@LLEDN+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=53175106+&TARGET=VIEW

45. Please quote the language in the bill that counters my assertion that telling the kids the following is not sufficient:

    “Do not bully children who are different, no matter what it is that makes them different. No exceptions whatsoever.”

46. you obviously don’t know how to read a bill
    The bill requires you to explicitly mention about orientations

    For the purposes of this section, “tolerance,” “respect for others” and “dignity” shall include awareness and sensitivity to discrimination or harassment and civility in the relations of people of different races, weights, national origins, ethnic groups, religions, religious practices, mental or physical abilities, sexual orientations, genders, and sexes.

    what you said is basically what the law originally said before they amended it with the new language in the “dignity for all students act” legally they would require you to at least mention the enumerated categories. Unfortunately that is the best reading of the law I repeat in California these words

    “Professional education staff who are sensitive to the needs of pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.”

    led to this
    http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/images/stories/pdfs/final_antibullying_lit_list.pdf

    look at the law and read both paragraphs the first one was the old law and the second is the amended law the statement I put earlier is the added point if you can’t figure out what is problematic with that statement then their is no point in even bothering to explain it to you.
    http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$EDN801-A$$@TXEDN0801-A+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=53175106+&TARGET=VIEW

    Since I’m sure you have never actually read a legal document before these conversations why don’t you in the future first know the facts then argue them.

47. OMG, it led to a RECOMMENDED Reading List!

    You had earlier said that this would “forced down the throat.”

    The proof?

    Because in another school system, something was RECOMMENDED.

    I see.

    I know, I know.
    One minute it’s “recommended,” next minute it’s “forced down the throat.”

    Wow.
    Scary world out there.
    (Except for naive, stupid people like myself who are so stupid and naive that they don’t know how to read a legal document.)

48. BTW, this whole thing started because you wrote that Cymbrowitz “wants to force Yeshivas to teach the concept of two mommies and two daddies to 5-year-old children!!!”

    Aside from using your powers of nevuah to foresee that San Francisco County’s “recommended” list will certainly be “forced down the throats” in NY, could you tell us a bit more about your powers of mind reading that enebled you to be so certain that this outcome is what Cymbrowitz “wants”?

    Was that your power of mind reading at work there?
    Or did Cymbrowitz ever go on record to say that this was his goal?

    Just asking.
    Given that you’re so big on morality, I’m sure you wouldn’t just make stuff up.

    Thanks.

49. do you look the links there was no opt out for religious student that would mean they would be required to take the classes over religious exemptions.
    http://www.alamedaconcernedparents.com/background
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2CaRf2MQK8&feature=player_embedded#