It’s all about achieving equilibrium in a democracy… However, I cannot support the concept of unemployed cartoon characters being used to promote a lifestyle choice to impressionable young children.

Timkins seems to deplore tolerance as a cover for moral relativism. And yet he doesn't like being labelled "homophobic" or "misogynist". Timkins, those labels are value judgements (although as Jane Rankin-Reid stated, she never used them).

The article she wrote was anything but an example of moral relativism. Using the arguments around a children's cartoon character she reported the views of antedelluvian religious fundamentalists and she has made explicit value judgements - labelling the US Education Secretary "hypocritical" and James Dobson as "intolerant". I would describe Dobson and his rabble in much more graphic terms but hey, I didn't write the article.

But in regard to moral relativism, it is interesting that the enemies of the gay movement accuse the public education system of moral relativism when the system is inclusive of gay issues, for example but then turn around and say public schools are "values free". This is a contradiction - the system is either values free or it teaches respect for gay people. Respect for people whose sexual orientation is different to your own is a value. And I support those values.

On the other hand, I find James Dobson's warped ideology disgusting, perverted and fundamentally immoral (and not representative of Christians). Say what you like but I am not a moral relativist.

I'm GUILTY as charged of being intolerant of US Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and Reverend Dobson views on SpongeBob and Buster the Rabbit. Aslan, Seeker, Timkins, to me, the main difference between their institutionalized highly political paid to play style of intolerance and my impatience with such bigotry in this part of human history, is that they are in positions of enormous influence and are actively shifting the balance of liberal educational content in the US classroom, whereas I'm filing an "opinion" piece on a commentary website. The difference is that unlike US kids who are now being deprived of important educational methologies due to fundamentalist pressure on their teachers, you get to bite back as you have. But most importantly, I write from mono-cultural Tasmania, a community somewhat less experienced with gay acceptance and other contemporary issues of tolerance. I made the point about the many regional writers throughout the US, UK and Canada who've taken exactly the same opportunity of writing about something so ludicrous a banning a rabbit from afternoon TV, let alone accusing a sponge of subversion, because it is an easy gentle fairly humorous way of getting the issues out into our communities. There is still far too much life threatening despair amongst isolated youth in places like Tasmania for me to look in the other direction; its my job to say it as I see it lays.

The ridiculous goings-on over Sponge Bob is no worse than the ridiculous goings-on over Enid Blytons character Noddy (and Enid Blyton in general) some years back. My God, we've had Enid Blyton, Mother Goose, and most fairy tales given a good old going over with screams of sexist, racist etc. etc. etc. Now the liberal left know how stupid they sounded at their loudest and most shrill.

Having said that just because the left made fools of themselves for years in educational circles doesn't mean the religious kooks have a license to do the same. I just hope the pendulum swings back and stops somewhere in the middle and stupid political and religious ideology is put a distant second to the rounded and proper education of our kids.

Jane,
I spent Christmas in Tasmania, and I spent Christmas afternoon sitting on the veranda of an old style farmer’s cottage having a wonderful chat to a number of very diverse people, including a gay couple from Margate.

This is interesting, because your perspective as a local of Hobart, and my perspective as a visitor are quite different. However I understand that during winter, many people in Tasmania can wear the expressions of early convicts.

Without a clear definition of what is meant by “tolerance”, “evolution”, “fundamentalism” etc. then these things can mean many different things depending on perspective I suppose.

Eg. tolerance could mean “zero tolerance”, or it could mean “complete tolerance”.

Which of the following is correct: -
1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 = 11
1 + 1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = ?

With “complete tolerance” in the classroom, all of the above would be correct, as nothing is right or wrong, (and this could include human behaviour as well).

With “zero tolerance” the first has to be correct, or it’s off to the isolation cells for that student. So I guess, tolerance in education should involve directing students towards what is considered right, while not being totally adamant or unforgiving.

Dear Jane,

You're not just guilty of being intolerant of Dobson and Spelling - you're guilty of talking complete and utter incoherent nonsense.

And don't pretend to be neutral, Jane - or concerned about the kids. You're not neutral - and you're not the slightest bit concerned about the kids. You resent the fact that these people have influence whereas you don't. But if you had the influence you would not think twice about influencing the course of education toward your point of view.

Basically, it boils down to you having a sook because the course of US education isn't going the way YOU want. How pathetic.

Poor Jane - US kids are being taught about the bankrupty of socialism, the foolishness of harm minimisation, the debunking of revisionist history, and they are once again hearing the voice of the dead white European males, and Jane doesn't like it. She would rather teach them incoherent nonsense and enshrine them in blissful ignorance (and, consequently, poverty).

AK