Category: Trends

30 April, 2015

Blogging the Revised Ontario Sex-Education Curriculum: 12 things you must know

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.

29 April, 2015

Blogging the Revised Ontario Sex-Education Curriculum 4: "It's too heavy, Pappa!"

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.”

Corrie Ten Boom risked her life to save Jews from the Nazis

28 April, 2015

Blogging the Revised Sex-Education Curriculum 3: Math is Hard

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.