Thoughts…?
TORONTO — Ontario’s Liberal government says it is not prepared to abandon the sex-ed component of a pending anti-bullying law, despite criticism by some religious leaders Tuesday that it is an affront to traditional family values.
Christian, Jewish and Muslim representatives say they agree school bullies must be stopped, but they can’t condone a requirement under the legislation proposed to deal with it that schools promote sexual tolerance through gay clubs.
“To force, especially Christian classrooms or schools, to have homosexual clubs would of course be an affront to their family values,” Charles McVety, of the Institute for Canadian Values, told a joint news conference.
“And what does this have to do with bullying? Nothing.”
McVety, who led the fight against the Liberals’ last attempt to update the province’s sex-ed curriculum, says Premier Dalton McGuinty is using the problem of bullying to advance “his radical sex education agenda.”
The religious leaders say that agenda is driven by gay activists.
“When you are forcing teachers, Christian teachers, Jewish teachers, Muslim teachers, to teach things that are contrary to the values that they hold, to teach that there are six genders and that you are not attached to the gender of your anatomy, do you not find that that may be an offence to a lot of Ontarians?” asked McVety.
Rabbi Mendel Kaplan of Chabad Flamingo Synagogue in Toronto said he also believes that parts of the anti-bullying bill aimed at making schools inclusive and tolerant of gay lifestyles are offensive to many families.
“This legislation proposes that children be indoctrinated to reject their parents’ faith and their parents’ family values, and that’s an affront,” said Kaplan.
“What nobody here in good conscience can support is a law that calls on people of faith to abandon the beliefs that we consider sacred, all in the name of political correctness.”
Other religious activists say there will be a mass exodus of kids from public and separate schools if the anti-bullying bill with its sexual accommodation provisions is not amended.
“There’s radical, radical stuff in there, all of this agenda on gender identity and facilitating the questioning of a child’s gender and all this other sex-driven stuff that’s clearly coming from activists,” said Jack Fonseca of Campaign Life Catholic.
“It’s not coming from parents’ consultations. It was drafted with consultations by radical activist groups.”
Education Minister Laurel Broten rejected the criticisms expressed by the religious representatives as “homophobic,” and said her job was to make sure every child finds school a warm and inviting place, regardless of their sexual orientation or any other factors.
“There’s absolutely nothing radical about working hard as a community to make sure that every single student in our schools can be safe and accepted and succeed,” said Broten.
McGuinty also defended the legislation during a visit to Windsor, saying all Catholic schools will be required to have a gay-straight alliance, even though they won’t have to use that name.
“I fully expect that Catholic kids are going to use the word ‘gay,”‘ said McGuinty.
“I fully expect that Catholic teachers are going to use the word gay, and as a Catholic premier of Ontario I’m going to be talking about gay kids.”
Campaign Life Catholic responded by saying McGuinty is not a good Catholic because he supports abortion and same-sex marriages.
“To say that he should be the one who dictates what kind of Catholicism gets taught in a religious school, that’s absurd,” said Fonseca.
“Dalton McGuinty nor any other person who wears the cultural badge of Catholic, and goes to church in order to look good come election time, they don’t have the right to change Catholic teaching.”
The New Democrats said the anti-bullying campaign won’t be effective if the government is afraid to force Catholic schools to use the name gay-straight alliance for clubs that promote tolerance.
“There’s no way a word like gay should be the thing that prevents students from making sure they have the support networks they need in their schools,” said NDP Leader Andrea Horwath
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111206/religious-groups-upset-sex-ed-anti-bullying-111206/20111206/?hub=OttawaHome
How anyone can waste energy obsessing about the sex lives of others in 2011 is beyond logic. If we don’t all start facing up to climate change, there won’t be any schools, bullies or family values to agonise about. No tiny moral victories. The Earth gives us everything. Worship that.
You’ve totally missed the point Mark. The reason why religious people are upset is because the school system is obsessing about THEIR sex lives (the religious people), and trying to force them into conforming to the cultural phenomenon of multiple sexual orientations. The system is trying to prevent parents from raising their children with the belief that they are straight…period. I agree that we have much better things to do then trying to force people to conform to a recently created social acceptance of sexual multiplicity. The school system could be teaching students about climate change, as you say, but instead it is focused on trying to conform students’ sex lives to modern-day social norms.
In regards to your worship the earth comment, the earth may give us everything, but who gave us the earth? Why don’t we worship that?
No, I really didn’t miss the point.
Hand-wringing and obsessing over what other people do in bed is an intrusion into other people’s private business. Most people would see this as embarrassing, as in our enlightened age it is now recognised as a kind of moral voyeurism. From an external viewpoint, many religions are becoming increasingly perceived as an instrument for claiming moral high ground in order to assume piety. This is usually directly proportionate to the issues of the person pointing the finger.
Our ecological chaos is burgeoning and those who are distracted by other people’s sex lives would do better to address the stability of the planet they stand on, otherwise the luxury of such obtuse debate might become an irrelevance. If it isn’t already.
As the ship sinks, right-thinking people will man the lifeboats. Is it really wise to stay behind and try to peer into cabin key holes?
‘Sexual multiplicity’ as you call it is not a recent thing, which makes me wonder if you have any concept of history. You seem to be wilfully ignoring Alexander the Great and Leonardo Da Vinci, so thousands of years of history are working against you there.
Which leads me to nature and science. Any religion which fails to recognise the true nature of humanity and it’s environment (true spirituality) will eventually fade away.
Perhaps you forgot to read the article before you commented? The article is not about religious people trying to force homosexuals and sexually diverse people stop their actions, it is about religious people being forced to conform to recent sexual norms. Unfortunately for you, Leonardo Da Vinci and Alexander the Great do not hold history in the palms of their hands, so using them as an argument for “thousands of years of history” is a bit of a fallacy, especially since the status of Alexander the Great’s sexual orientation is in much dispute, and there is no strong evidence either way, but that is neither here nor there. I am not disputing the history of sexual multiplicity, as it does not bear on the present discussion. The real issue is whether it is acceptable for the government through the school system to force religious people to educate their children towards accepting homosexual and bisexual activities. I agree that the government should not try to force conformance on people of a moral law of sexuality, as it would be pointless. However, I do not condone a government or school system that forces a departure on the individual level from a moral choice. You spout free choice in regarding sexuality, but you deny moral choice for individuals-a little inconsistent is it not? After all, what is free choice if not the ability to determine your own beliefs on morality?
Morality begins and ends with empathy. It’s the one thing I really respect of Christian teachings: Do unto others as you would be done by.
When students are being bullied, and it results in fatalities, as it it increasingly does, then the matter of protecting vulnerable people is not really open for discussion.
You are absolutely right. The protection of the vulnerable is absolutely essential to a good society. But the closing of discussion is essential for dictatorships and tyrannies, which can take their form in democratic systems. The question is how to do the protecting, and harming one group’s moral rights for another’s safety is not the best way. Sacrificing one group for another is a large step towards arbitrary government, which is a step towards tyranny. Discussion should never be closed, as J.S. Mills pointed out to us long ago. And saying something is wrong says nothing on how to right that wrong.
Your wilful ignorance is astonishing. When students are killing themselves, it’s time for the pious to get off their high horses and engage with the reality before them.
If homosexuality was a choice, then don’t you think the bullied student would change back to heterosexual rather than end their own life? Doesn’t that tell you something? You cannot influence sexuality any more than I can convince you to date a lemon meringue pie.
If people are being harassed to the point of suicide then it is time you questioned your own psychological view of the world.
Good article, and thank you for posting Trit.
Does the government have the right to tell private schools what they should be teaching as moral values? I understand that many parents send their kids to private schools because they want to instil their moral values onto their children. My parents spent quite a bit of money to send me to a private elementary school. If this bill goes through, what will distinguish private religious schools from public schools?
I strongly believe that parents are the parents of their children, and therefore are the first to instil moral values upon their children. The government exists to protect the state, and the members of its state. It does not exist to indoctrinate the members of its state. I do not wish to see any state turn their young members into mind slaves. If I am correct, there was a state at least once that took this very far. I think these young members were called the Hitler youth? Ah yes, I remember now…
Leave a comment, check!
Apply Godwin’s law, check!
Black Knight