Good book

>Here is a transcript of one of the speeches before the School Board on Tuesday night. It was received with tremendous applause, quite deservedly so:

“My name is Katie Neville; I’ve lived in Mr. Marshall’s School Board district for 23 years, on ____ St. in the same house; three of my children graduated from high school in Loudoun County. My husband – I only have one, I’ve still got him – have (inaudible due to laughter) children and five grandchildren. I’m also a cradle Episcopalian. That’s a term that will make sense to Dr. Hatrick, meaning I’ve been one for about sixty years. I’m also a fourth-generation teacher, and I would like to share with you a story about my mother, who stood on the Courthouse steps in 1958 in Warren County, and said it’s wrong to close the schools rather than enroll Black students. That’s where I learned to stand up for what I think is right.

“And what I think, is that when we remove this book from any of our libraries, we send the wrong message. We send the message that some families are less acceptable than other families. And as a public school ““ I’ve worked for the public schools for thirty-six years. I’ve worked with every kind of family. And I think, that if a parent has a concern about a book, there’s a very easy way to solve it: ‘Dear Librarian, this book is not suitable for my child. Please let him check out another one.’ I don’t think it’s right to remove this book, I think it sends the wrong message. And I think as a public school system, we need to stand up, to teach tolerance and respect for every student, every staff member, and every family that’s part of our system.

“That’s the message in this book,” (holding up Tango) “and that’s the message in this book” (holding up the Bible).

This entry was posted in Advocacy, Commentary and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Good book

  1. Jack says:

    Where’s the message in the Bible that says same-sex couples are OK?

  2. Katie Neville says:


    As far as I know, Jesus didn’t say anything about gay people or gay couples. He DID say much about treating people with respect, dignity, and love.

  3. Katie Neville says:

    Oh, and Jack,

    Don’t be picking and choosing Old Testament verses for me. You either accept the Old Testament literally or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose the verses that suit you and ignore all the others.

  4. David says:

    Oh, I am so looking forward to Jack’s attempt to ‘school’ Katie on the Scriptures…hey, I’ll take my entertainment where I can get it.

  5. Jack says:

    I’ve always wondered if those were your real names, “Jonathan.”

    Are you implying that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship? Are all American Indians that have become “blood brothers” similarly homosexual?

    Katie, I do not “pick and choose” Old Testament verses, but read them in light of what we have of Jesus’ words (and we do not have them all, so you cannot say what He did not talk about, only what we know He did talk about.

    In any event, Paul did discuss such relationships, and uniformly condemned them. You cannot pick and choose from the New Testament, either.

  6. Jonathan says:

    Wow Jack, now you’ve moved from questioning my marriage to questioning my identity.

    btw, Paul did not talk about relationships, he talked about culture, festival, ceremony… Jesus talked about relationships and he was very clear.

  7. Jack says:

    Paul talked about ACTIONS, and SIN.

    I notice that you neither confirmed nor denied. 🙂

  8. Jonathan says:


    You trespass and insult me and my family at every opportunity. I try to do as Jesus taught and turn the other cheek. Righteousness is infinitely patient.

  9. Katie Neville says:

    Yep, there is Paul, who also said (Romans 2:1) “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein though judgest another thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” Now Jack, before you get you panties in a twist, let me remind you that Biblical scholars take that to mean judge not, lest ye be not judged.

    And besides, in biblical times, there was no concept of homosexuality as scientists (you have heard of them, right?) understand it today – so whatever Paul said, it wouldn’t apply. And it’s been a long time since I read much in Greek, but as I remember, there was no Greek word which meant homosexual until a translation at some point in the 20th century.

    So Jack, you can quote the Fred Phelps Version and I’ll quote the King James and on Judgment Day we’ll see who’s right, OK?

  10. Jack says:

    Katie, from the KJV:

    9I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

    10Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

    11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

    12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

    13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

    Note the phrase “called a brother,” by which is meant one who calls himself a Christian. Those outside the church, Paul says, we are not to judge, but rather those inside the church.

  11. Katie Neville says:

    Well Jack,

    The way I read that, the “wicked person” would be you. So I’m going to put myself away from you (permanently.) Bye.

  12. Jack says:

    Sorry, David ( if that is your real name 🙂 ), but it looks like you will not be getting your entertainment after all. Perhaps another time.

  13. David says:

    I can’t help noticing that this thread is so much more interesting to people than is the one directly below, in which I express substantial agreement with a person who considers me to be her “opponent.” That’s kind of sad, actually.

  14. Jack says:

    Since you were generally in agreement, I did not really see the need to comment. Just because one does not comment on a post does not mean it is not of interest. However, since you have brought it up, I will revisit the post, and see whether I can contribute anything.

  15. Shiloh says:

    UPDATE ON SILO & ROY–“Silo walked out on Roy for a girlfriend from California called Scrappy, which moved to Central Park from San Diego’s SeaWorld. The new heterosexual couple built a nest and hang out by the pool, while Roy broods alone.”–Timesonline

    What happened???? Silo became aware of his inappropriate behavior and came to his senses. I like happy endings.

  16. David says:

    Shiloh…you do realize that you are talking about actual penguins, right?

    You’re probably not a regular reader, so you don’t realize that we discussed the rest of the Roy-and-Silo story here; it’s really not much of an update. You probably are also unaware that this is completely typical penguin behavior. Penguins don’t mate for life, they are actually serial monogamists – a nuance that I think most of those caught up in the March of the Penguins phenomenon didn’t catch. It’s also fairly common for penguins, as it is for many other species, to form same sex pair-bonded couples. There were two other such penguin couples at the Central Park Zoo during the time that Roy and Silo were a couple. It’s really a bit silly to think of penguins as being “gay” or “straight,” and even more so to imagine them “walking out” on each other, or being introspective with regard to their own behavior.

    Of course, the point of the story (both in real life and in the book) is that little Tango wasn’t left to die of neglect by the younger couple that didn’t have the capacity to care for her properly. I suppose it doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things, but it certainly made a difference for her. Yay for happy endings!

    I enjoyed the linguistic construction of your comment immensely.

  17. David says:

    …in light of what we have of Jesus’ words (and we do not have them all, so you cannot say what He did not talk about…

    Curiouser and curiouser. If we accept this statement, how then can it be simultaneously true that the Bible is the absolute, inerrant and exhaustive Word of God? You can’t have it both ways – either God Is Still Speaking, or not.

  18. Jack says:


    First, the “mating-for-life” thing depends on the particular species of penguin. Of course, in the Antarctic, life often ends quickly.

    “Of course, the point of the story (both in real life and in the book) is that little Tango wasn’t left to die….”

    Really? I thought the point was “about the love, nurturing and safety that family represents….” Now you’re saying penguins don’t even HAVE families?

    I am depressed.

  19. David says:

    How are these things contradictory? The reason that Tango lived and thrived is because of the love (term used advisedly – anthropomorphizing), nurturing and safety that Roy and Silo provided. I don’t understand your point, nor why this depresses you. Cheer up.

    For Chinstrap penguins, “family” means a temporary pair, raising offspring if they have them. For a small child reading the book, that’s no more important than is actual bear mating behavior to the Berenstain Bears series (which is considerably less reality-based, I might add). Let’s not overthink this.

  20. Jack says:

    Hmmm… DAVID, using scare quotes around family? What is the world coming to?

    First, you anthropomorphize the penguins to give children the idea that all families are created equal. Now that the chick is out of the nest and the happy couple is no longer an item, you say they cannot be used as a metaphor for human families.

  21. David says:

    No, I’ve been very clear that one should not make the error of anthropomorphizing penguins. I discussed this at length here.

    That’s the reason I used quotes around “family;” to designate what we were talking about as something other than a human understanding of family. I think that was a proper usage.

  22. Jack says:

    Yours is also a definition of the word that is counter to human understanding and all of written history.

  23. David says:

    Well, I’m a human and I understand it just fine. I suppose we shall have to disagree on this.