You have the right to keep your Christian faith to yourself.
Many parents are shocked to learn what has been happening in their children’s schools. This situation, however, was many years in coming. Scott Masson has a very good video here.
My purpose in this entry is to simply make 12 concise statements about the Government of Ontario and its view of you and your children. Once you know these things, you may plan accordingly.
- The Government of Ontario does not see your children as really yours. The children you birthed or adopted belong to the state, which determines what is best for your children in health, education, and their general welfare. At best, parents are seen as “co-parents” with the state.
- The Government of Ontario determines what is fact and truth in matters of sexuality.
- The Government of Ontario will state that their view of sexuality is based upon scientific fact. This is not true. It is based on a collection of theories that express the strong desires of a few people.
- It has been decided that homosexuality and transgenderism, and the vast varieties of experience brought for by these orientations, are as normal and correct and right and true as heterosexuality.
- The actions of non-heterosexuality good, even if it includes what has been for years considered sodomy.
- These orientations and behaviours are not to be avoided, cured, treated, pitied, or restricted; rather, they are to be embraced and accepted as fully as heterosexuality.
- Children must decide for themselves what is right, and parents, religion or tradition may or may not be a part of this decision.
- Non-heterosexual orientation may occur at any time in a person’s lifetime, including the preschool age.
- Gender is not sex. The sex you were born with is not necessarily your gender. This is called “gender fluidity.” Your child’s gender may be “fluid,” and you as a parent have no right to interfere with it.
- When your religious views contradict those of the government, which will occur most often in school, your religious views must yield to those of the government.
- Historically, the family is the place of nurture and education, health and wellbeing. The state sees the schools and other state institutions as superior to the family. The state sees the traditional family is a its competitor. This curriculum is a part of the Government of Ontario’s attempt to effectively destroy the traditional family.
- Individuals do not have rights, only groups have rights, and those groups must be approved by the state. You, your child, and your family have value only as they contribute to society, and society that is worthy is determined by the state.
Public education, which I define as taxpayer funded, government controlled, and compulsory, is a very recent development in Canadian history. What is also clear, that given the backdrop of human civilization, taking education from the home, church, or synagogue and placing it in the hands of the government has a very short history. As an experiment, we may see that it has largely failed.
I believe that public education, as presently defined and practised, is an experiment that must end. It has not produced the fruits that parents desire, and all too often has produced children who are more indoctrinated in the will of governments rather than educated for critical thinking and moral knowledge.
Anyone who calls to end the present system will be met with charges that he is anti-education. It must be kept in mind, however, that education and school are not the same thing. Public school and church academy are not the same thing. There are a variety of means to educate, but the family is primarily responsible. So insofar as public education now seeks to pit child against parent, it is time for the parents to once again take full control of their children’s education. Those who doubt this is true should remember that in 2001, parents were given a tax break in Ontario if they paid tuition to a private school, whether or not that school was religious or not. The Liberal Government does not believe in competition in forming young minds, however, and quickly cancelled the tax deduction when they came to power.
The problems we face today have been very long in coming. Public education has, from its beginning, been against a Christian worldview, and therefore set against Christian families. The moralistic lessons that were once taught in public schools gave false sense of security to religious parents. That day is past, and the mask is off.
Homeschool or private school: your children are your responsibility.
Please read this quote, then be sure to make note of when it was written. Could it be that we’ve been in this struggle much longer than we first thought?
“The whole development of modern society has tended mightily toward the limitation of the realm of freedom for the individual man. The tendency is most clearly seen in socialism; a socialistic state would mean the reduction to a minimum of the sphere of individual choice. Labor and recreation, under a socialistic government, would both be prescribed, and individual liberty would be gone. But the same tendency exhibits itself to-day even in those communities where the name of socialism is most abhorred. When once the majority has determined that a certain régime is beneficial, that régime without further hesitation is forced ruthlessly upon the individual man. It never seems to occur to modern legislatures that although “welfare” is good, forced welfare may be bad. In other words, utilitarianism is being carried out to its logical conclusions; in the interests of physical well-being the great principles of liberty are being thrown ruthlessly to the winds.
The result is an unparalleled impoverishment of human life. Personality can only be developed in the realm of individual choice. And that realm, in the modern state, is being slowly but steadily contracted. The tendency is making itself felt especially in the sphere of education. The object of education, it is now assumed, is the production of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But the greatest happiness for the greatest number, it is assumed further, can be defined only by the will of the majority. Idiosyncrasies in education, therefore, it is said, must be avoided, and the choice of schools must be taken away from the individual parent and placed in the hands of the state. The state then exercises its authority through the instruments that are ready to hand, and at once, therefore, the child is placed under the control of psychological experts, themselves without the slightest acquaintance with the higher realms of human life, who proceed to prevent any such acquaintance being gained by those who come under their care.
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, New Edition. First published: 1923. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 8–10.
One of the criticisms leveled against the Revised Ontario Sex-Education Curriculum is that it is age-inappropriate. If understood, however, that the plan is to make transgenderism and homosexuality normative, it becomes clear that younger is much better. It is much harder to unlearn what has been taught at early ages, and this is why such material is delayed until High School.
Corrie Ten Boom is well known among Christians as a Dutch woman, who, along with her immediate family was imprisoned for sheltering Jews during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. They were betrayed and sent to concentration camps. I believe that only Corrie survived to tell the tale, and she lived to old age.
She is the Corrie in the article excerpt below. Although this was written in 2013 about the US president Obama and his Attorney General, ,Eric Holder, the principles of the destruction of childhood apply to Ontario today. Please take the time to read the whole article here.
“Corrie Ten Boom, in her autobiographical The Hiding Place, relays the story of when she, still a young girl and traveling with her father, asked him what sex was. He told her to try to lift his packed luggage bag. She couldn’t. He said he would be a cruel father if he made her carry this heavy bag. Just like that bag was too heavy for her, the knowledge of which she was inquiring was too heavy. But when she grew stronger and more mature, she could bear it. It was a timely metaphor from a very wise father, and quite to the point. Sexual knowledge is too glorious for a young child to bear. Every good parent understands this implicitly. It is not a mere social construct that makes parents uneasy when their children begin to inquire into this more glorious knowledge before they are ready to bear it. And when a child learns of it prematurely, it tends to twist and pervert her just like a heavy object would twist a young tree growing under the weight.
Understanding the nature of glory in this way, especially is it pertains to human sexuality, exposes the cruel agenda of sex-education in our government schools. The Enemy would crush our children with the weight of sexual glory in the hopes of perverting them and even robbing them of that very glory. Given the statistics of divorce, unmarrieds and abortions since the advent of sexual “liberation,” the scheme seems to have worked nicely. Satan is not so much interested in attacking the family generally as He is in crushing the woman (man’s glory) and the fruit of her womb. He has always targeted the womb, lest the woman be saved through childbearing.”
Critics of critics of the Revised Ontario Sex-Education Curriculum are now pushing back, fearful of the result of the upcoming parents’ strike on May 4th-8th. They are pushing back, saying that parents are misinformed, and likely have not read the document. It is being said that the most radical elements are not even present in the curriculum.
The problem is, the document is in many places benign (and boring), and does not get into the worst part of this program. This is because the document does not go into the explicit detail that the curriculum ultimately will, and the graphic nature of the program, necessary to teach young children, has not be unveiled. Please don’t misunderstand–there is enough in the official document to create all the alarm. The in-the-school outworking of this guide will be horrible.
The Toronto District School Board has been at the forefront Comprehensive Sex Education. For example, The TDSB has distributed this poster, included here, that shows that, not only does “love have no gender” but it isn’t limited to two, either. But polyamory is not mentioned in the curriculum, isn’t this reactionary? No, because the curriculum is only a minimum guideline that allows any kind of deviance to be promoted. If parents think this curriculum is only about two people in committed relationships, they are naive indeed.
Conversion therapy will be illegal in Ontario. So if a person becomes a Christian (converts) he/she (or any other of the 50+ genders) must not convert to the sex with which they were born.
Remember, that when faith is private, the realm of the private shrinks and the rule of the state increases. The state now owns your emotions and affections.
I am using the next few blog posts to highlight the Revised Ontario Sex-education curriculum. This first post is about values:
From the curriculum for grades 1-8:
“Parents are the primary educators of their children with respect to learning about values,
appropriate behaviour, and ethnocultural, spiritual, and personal beliefs and traditions,
and they are their children’s first role models. It is therefore important for schools and
parents to work together to ensure that home and school provide a mutually supportive
framework for young people’s education.”
At the outset, if the government of Ontario really believed that the parental role is important, the parents’ religious values would not be so immediately dismissed. The consultation of parents was done by allowing one parent from each school in the province to weigh in on the program. Judging by the persistence of the protests,, it seems the wrong parents were picked for consultation. Less than 1% of parents were consulted. It should be noted that the curriculum demands the surrender of the Christian parents’ values to the values of the state. This would, I believe, be true of many non-Christian religious values.
A question period video is available about this consultation.
For those outside Ontario, Kathleen Wynne is the Premier of Ontario, similar to a governor of a U.S. state. She is also a lesbian.
Original document here.
By definition, idolatry is totalizing. As there is a God who claims dominion and lordship and crown rights over every particle of His creation, idols do the same. The state has been deformed from its proper (God ordained and restricted) sphere by human reasoning, which is in opposition to God’s revealed Word, and has become a powerful idol. It is an idol that seeks to define right from wrong, truth from error, beauty from ugliness. It has usurped these powers in unrighteousness, crudely affirming that what is true and right and beautiful is what it has legislated to be so. This is immediately evident in many governments’ attack on the family, the unborn, the disabled, and the heterosexual. It is evident in the creation of fictions such as same sex marriage, multiple genders (transgenderism), euthanasia as compassion, and abortion as birth control.
God has ordained government, but government is not God.
A pietistic Christianity is what the state demands, and what no Christian can offer. Pietism limits the role of the Christian faith to the private and personal, seeking personal salvation in the future, but severely restricts its practise in the present. It is a limitation to private worship, Bible reading, and prayer, as long as these do not result in acting upon the claims of Scripture. The state seeks to drive the actual living out of the Christian faith further into the private sphere, knowing full well that as the state expands its powers and influence, that sphere becomes smaller and smaller, and much less relevant to daily life. In this way, many leaders in the state hope to virtually eliminate the Christian faith, not by mere oppression, but by relegating it out of normal life. As the Christian faith is co-opted by the state for its own purposes, with the cooperation of apostate denominations (largely liberal mainline denominations), the Christian faith becomes a showpiece of state intervention into areas outside its rightful sphere.
Idolatry of this sort accepts no competition from church, family, education or business. This is why those representing the state, and many in popular culture, demand that the Christian faith be re-formed to accommodate the demands of culture. The Christian is faced with the choice (Acts 5:29) of obeying God or the idol makers.
One such idol maker is Hillary Clinton. She now demands that the Christian faith surrender to her legislative powers over truth. Video here.
“The foundation of true education is the truth that man, though fallen and sinful, is made in the image of God the creator and king. Education is a core implication of the gospel truth that Jesus Christ is Lord over all the earth.”
Video by Joe Boot of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity here.