One Painter’s Brush with Intolerance

One Painter’s Brush with Intolerance

Rhode Island is a small state with a big censorship problem. Last week, high school junior Liz Bierendy was putting the finishing touches on a sketch for the hallway mural when an assistant principal stopped her. The design was too controversial, he insisted, because it included the picture of a married man and woman. According to the school officials, the image was offensive because it “may not represent the life experiences of many of the students at Pilgrim High School.” Liz’s idea was to show the life journey of a young boy to adulthood, ending with the scene of a husband, wife, and son with wedding rings over their heads. After the complaint of a single student, administrators ordered a custodian to paint over the offending section of Liz’s mural until she could find “alternative ways” to show the progression to adulthood.
The 17-year-old artist was as surprised as anyone by the school’s overreaction. “I hope I didn’t offend anyone,” she told local reporters. “I didn’t want to make anyone mad.” On the contrary, most parents are speaking out in Bierendy’s defense. “Political correctness is ruining America,” said one father. Even the local newscasters shook their heads , “What isn’t offensive these days?”
Of course, the irony is that modern art has been the license for dung on the Virgin Mary, ants crawling on Jesus’s face, defecating nativities, Barbies dismembered in blenders–and traditional marriage is what shocks some people? Even more outrageous, those “alternative” unions the principal recommended aren’t even legal in Rhode Island! Liz’s representation of marriage was completely aligned with state law, which is what makes this incident so alarming. If this kind of viewpoint discrimination is tolerated now–in states that don’t even recognize homosexual relationships–imagine the censorship of an entire nation with same-sex “marriage!”
People wonder how the homosexual agenda could possibly affect them? Well, this is a perfect illustration. Americans are free to “love” whom they choose, but the freedom of religion, of expression, and speech cannot coexist in a culture that forces the public affirmation of homosexuality. Something has to give–and all too often, that something is traditional values. Fortunately for Liz, Superintendent Peter Horoschak felt enough blowback from the local community to step in. He overruled the school’s administrators and said it was time to let Bierendy “finish her vision.”
Unfortunately for Connecticut Pastor James Loomer, protecting students wasn’t on his school district’s agenda. This week, at a meeting of the Milford School Board, members denied his request to stop the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) national “Day of Silence.” At past events, GLSEN was caught distributing pamphlets that promote everything from child sex to pornography. “If parents [knew] the inappropriateness of the materials, they’d be enraged,” Pastor Loomer said. Still, the Board wouldn’t budge. They insist on moving forward with the event on April 20 in the name of “tolerance.”
Is your child’s school marking the “Day of Silence?” Follow Pastor Loomer’s example and find out. You might be surprised at how quickly this agenda is being advanced in your kids’ classrooms. For more information on how you can get involved in stopping the indoctrination, check out Peter Sprigg’s pamphlet, “Homosexuality in Your Child’s School.” Also, check out this clip about GLSEN from FRC’s latest documentary, The Problem with Same-Sex Marriage, to see what the other side is trying to hide.

About a12iggymom

Conservative - Christian - Patriot
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to One Painter’s Brush with Intolerance

  1. findalis says:

    I understand only one student complained.

    If just one student complains about something, the administration must cave in.


  2. upaces88 says:

    This article is so true how PC has destroyed our country that I asked for permission to copy and paste it everywhere-and did receive copyright permission. I am only uploading a small excerpt. PLEASE read all of it. And, IF you want to, please feel free to make it into an entire blog segment:
    Crucify Political Correctness on the Altar of Freedom of Speech
    The West will either reject the logic of Political Correctness or suffer a catastrophic failure of vision, will, power and influence, destroying civil society as we know it. This may sound drastic, and of course it is. But why is it being claimed here? Because the ideas in the doctrines of Political Correctness and related notions like Multiculturalism are so destructive that—much like magma—these cannot long be held safely before spilling over and causing tremendous damage, chaos and destruction of our society.

    The reason it must be eliminated is because Political Correctness is a Trojan horse for Marxism, which always destroys everything it touches. PC is a curse which must be denounced before it mangles its host society, especially since it is the very opposite of Free Speech. More importantly, individual responsibility is eliminated by PC standards which make irrelevant personal morality. This is the subject of this essay.

    I. Definition of Political Correctness

    Political Correctness (PC) is shorthand for an ideology which implies ethical or moral superiority for various positions which challenge traditional morality. defines PC as

    1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

    PC has become, in practice, a set of standards by which communication is purified from unacceptable content. But PC has also deeply affected public policy and law, and ultimately ideas about morality, itself. For example, against the longstanding notion of the right of free expression, even thinking many forbidden thoughts would break PC norms. And for this reason, PC has evolved from being rules for “sensitivity” training into a set of un-breachable social mores.

    One author sums up this idea:

    Political correctness has 3 features. First, political correctness is a set of attitudes & beliefs divorced from mainstream values. Second, the politically correct person has a prescriptive view on how people should think & what they are permitted to discuss. Third, & most importantly, political correctness is embedded in public institutions, which have a legislative base, & which have coercive powers. It is this third aspect that gives political correctness its authority. Without this capture of power the views of the politically correct would simply be another view in the marketplace of ideas. A person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority, & become focused on the cares & concerns of minority groups.

    Yet, when peeling back the layers of the onion of PC, one cannot help but notice a strongly socialist or Marxist bent to these rules. And this is no coincidence. As Bill Lind says,

    Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

    So PC is a method for transporting Marxist ideas into traditional cultures.
    Please continue reading:

    Kelly O’Connell


Comments are closed.