In a certain book for the ages, there’s something about millstones and children and sin and sea. It seems that too many today have forgotten this, and a recent story is a good example.
As Fox News reports:
A Louisiana teacher posted on Facebook how confusing students about gender identity was enjoyable.
The teacher, Blaine Banghart, is a music teacher at University Elementary School in Shreveport who uses the term Mx., as opposed to Mr. or Ms.
“The kids are all confused and asking why I have a mustache if I’m a girl, if I’m Mr. Banghart now, why am I trying to look like a boy, etc.,” Banghart wrote. “I’m just ignoring these questions/redirecting, so I don’t get in trouble.”
Banghart continued, “Though some of the reactions are hurtful (I’m not mad- they’re kids and don’t mean harm), I’m mostly just enjoying the confusion about ‘what’ I am.”
A picture of Banghart is below.
The Western Journal adds to the story, writing that in “a second post, Banghart said, ‘I just had a parent ask me my preferred adjectives because she wanted to comment on one of my photos, but she wanted to use words that I liked hearing for myself. That’s the kind of allyship that I need, A plus’” (video below).
Actually, the kind of “allyship” (a term sexual devolutionaries invented) Banghart needs is that of people who’ll tell her the truth and not enable her psychological disorder. But the “teacher” is getting both enablement and opposition from parents.
In fact, the Western Journal also informs:
This wasn’t the first time parents have spoken up about Banghart’s attire and … [her] interactions with students. Fox News Digital reported that, during a Caddo Parish School Board meeting held in March, parents expressed concern about a video posted to TikTok in which [s]he voiced … [her] frustration over … [her] “inability to be out at work.”
The district’s chief technology officer, Keith Hanson, defended Banghart at that meeting. According to Fox, Hanson said, “I have never spoken here as a citizen or parent of a student, but I am here today because this is important to me, my family and, most importantly, to her [Banghart]. Let everyone see on public record that there are good people here ready to defend other good people from vile, bigoted hate.”
Unlike Hanson, who likely knows this isn’t about bigotry but is playing a demonization propaganda game (when Truth refutes your beliefs, name-calling is your only recourse), it’s important to be intellectually honest here. Banghart, a woman who masquerades as male part time, may not have meant her “enjoying the confusion” comment maliciously. In the least, however, it reflects intense narcissism and self-centeredness, qualities that are the antithesis of love.
Being human, teachers have always had problems, some worse than others. Perhaps they struggled with alcohol or drug use, undesirable sexual inclinations, domestic abuse/problems, or a different issue. But years ago they knew to “keep it in the closet,” to not air their dirty laundry in public.
Today, too many love (lust after, really) the dirt.
In accordance with our older norms, people years back were also more likely to grasp that promoting our sins and thus encouraging them in others, especially children, compounds our sin. Food for thought pit stop:
How would people react if a teacher presented his adultery or bestiality to kids as an “alternative lifestyle”? Well, why do we give the so-called “LGBTQ” crowd a special dispensation, where they’re allowed to proselytize to children?
The answer: inurement. Sadly, people’s moral compasses and visceral feelings relating to right and wrong are formed more by societal conditioning than by orientation toward Truth.
Apropos to this, many people have been conditioned to believe that accepting the sexual devolutionary agenda is an imperative of “tolerance.” But this concept is sorely misunderstood. As the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen explained, “Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”
To elaborate, we wouldn’t tolerate a delectable meal or beautiful painting; we relish such things. But we would have to tolerate a bad cold or foul weather. The lesson is that “tolerance” always involves the abiding of a perceived negative. So we might tolerate a food we dislike (a subjective negative) but that yet is healthful, for dietary reasons or to avoid offending a host serving it; and we’d certainly have to tolerate a stubborn flu that must run its course. As for objective negatives (e.g., evil) that can be remedied, however, the only virtue lies in wiping them out.
Banghart does not belong in the classroom. She is a damaged individual, a person carrying a dangerous psycho-spiritual disease. Even if she did keep her agenda to herself, just her appearance alone would be a problem, as values are caught more than taught. Would we allow an educator to consistently teach class dressed as a dragon or clown?
There was a time, in the 19th century, when teachers would sometimes be expected to attend church Sundays as part of a sign of good character. Now Christianity is in the closet and sin is in.
Then there’s that other sin: of omission. When people in Shreveport and elsewhere tolerate sexual devolutionaries’ presence in schools, their inaction makes them complicit in the corruption of kids.
