Transparent Indoctrination

Thursday, July 21, AD 2016

Further evidence that tolerance has never been the goal of the left in this country:

Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that the California State Board of Education voted unanimously to include study of the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans in history and social-science classes. This LGBT-focused content will be taught in elementary, middle, and high-school grades. Teachers will give students, beginning in second grade, information about diverse family structures, including families with LGBT parents, to help students “locate themselves and their own families in history and learn about the lives and historical struggles of their peers,” according to the text of the framework.

In grade four, as students study the history of California, they will consider the history of LGBT individuals in their state and learn about the emergence of the nation’s first gay-rights organizations in the Fifties. The framework provides the following example of LGBT history:

In the 1970s, California gay rights groups fought for the right of gay men and women to teach, and, in the 2000s, for their right to get married, culminating in the 2013 and 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decisions Hollingsworth v. Perry and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Fourth-grade students will also learn about Harvey Milk — “a New Yorker who was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977 as California’s first openly gay public official” — in the context of immigrants who come to California from across the country and the world.

Eighth-graders will learn about the role of gender in history, including the role it played in “constructing the enslaved as in need of civilization and thereby rationalizing slavery.” Additionally, eighth-grade students will study the way in which movement toward the Western frontier allowed for significant alterations in gender norms. Southwestern women, the framework says, “felt trapped or limited by their gender in a place and time so dominated by men.” Students will also learn that boarding schools removed Native American children from their families and imposed “Christianity, U.S. gender binaries, and social roles.”

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Transparent Indoctrination

  • http://www.k12.wa.us/HealthFitness/Standards/HPE-Standards.pdf

    Page 29:
    5. Self-Identity
    Kindergarten: Understand there are
    many ways to
    express gender.
    H1.Se5.K

    1st:
    Explain that there are
    many ways to
    express gender.
    H1.Se5.1

    2nd:
    Understand there is a
    range of gender roles
    and expression.
    H1.Se5.2a
    Understand
    importance of
    treating others with
    respect regarding
    gender expression.
    H1.Se5.2b

    3rd:
    Explain that gender
    roles can vary
    considerably.
    H1.Se5.3a
    Understand
    importance of
    treating others with
    respect regarding
    gender identity.
    H1.Se5.3b

    4th:
    Identify how friends
    and family can
    influence ideas
    regarding gender
    roles, identity, and
    expression. H2.Se5.4
    Demonstrate ways
    to show respect for
    all people. H4.Se5.4
    Define sexual
    orientation. H1.Se5.4

    5th:
    Describe how media,
    society, and culture
    can influence ideas
    regarding gender
    roles, identity, and
    expression.
    H2.Se5.5a
    Promote ways to
    show respect for all
    people. H8.Se5.5
    Identify trusted
    adults to ask
    questions about
    gender identity and
    sexual orientation.
    H2.Se5.5b

    Yes, that tops out at 11 years old.

  • Shades of the Soviet Union after school Pioneer Clubs..separate the child from the parents and inculcate them with the party line. Next the teachers will be questioning the students about what their mommy and daddy teach them at home. What about parental rights??
    Express gender? How does one explain made up genders to kindergartners?
    Furthering the LGBT agenda and destroying childhood innocence.

  • There have already been some “incidents” with teenage boys in the girls’s shower.
    There’s been some push-back.

    We’re leaving the state.

  • “As commenter Dale Price once opined, the left aren’t having kids, so they are intent on stealing yours.”
    This is the literal truth in Norway, where the state child protective agency has systematically been taking thousands of immigrant children and giving them to Norwegians. The Czech president has compared them with the Nazi taking of Aryan looking children.

  • Where the government has been accused of systematically removing immigrant children.
    Please keep in mind the kinds of abuse that is known to happen, and be ignored by “child welfare advocates,” in the population involved. Ritual sexual mutilation, beating, burning and eventual murder are horrifyingly common.

  • Holy crud, even the articles written with no input from officials, entirely from the alleged victim family’s POV, are worrying– dressing a 10 year old so she can attract a husband?
    And the mentions of hundreds of minors who were put in protective custody being kidnapped and removed from the country?
    Please tell me I’m not the only one who’s aware of the human trafficking issue where girls are “engaged” in their early double-digits, taken out of country and married if they wish it or not?

  • Apparently Norway has some really strict privacy laws, so it literally cannot comment on a lot of reasons for kids being removed…but some articles mention that children were removed from families and placed with relatives.

  • I’m just reeling from all of this. Help! God! Help!
    What can we do about public school indoctrination?!
    Even talking with midwestern small town kids, I see that they already listen with suspicion when grandma or catechism teachers protest some of the bathroom issues or seem “intolerant”.
    They have been strengthened in their no rules anything goes mercy by what they see as trusted adults – teachers- who confide to them that they just have to let old grandparents carry on- “they grew up a long time ago you know and they still have those old ideas…,”

  • Apparently Norway has some really strict privacy laws, so it literally cannot comment on a lot of reasons for kids being removed
    How convenient.

    Foxlier, the Norwegian Supreme Court actually ordered children returned to one family and the child protective services (the Barnevernet) refused and announced it would proceed with their adoption by a Norwegian couple, on the grounds that after 2-3 years of foster care their return would be too traumatic.

    Then we have the case of the Bodnariu family from Romania: they were initially investigated because their children sang hymns at school and when questioned we found to have been abused by having been told about sin and hell (of course an admission of a spanking didn’t help either). The Barnevernet began adoption proceedings with their children before any court had ordered the termination of their parental rights! Only a international uproar stopped them and forced the return of the children (gee, must not have been that serious after all).

    Look, I fully know that child abuse and trafficking are major evils, but their existence is no excuse for the cases that have piled up in Norway. When you read a report, or see a BBC report, or hear that the Czech President is making Nazi comparisons, you have to sit up and say these are not mere allegations.

    “­­While Norway is certainly entitled to make its own laws, Peter Costea, a Texas civil rights attorney, argues that its system violates the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which it has signed.” “Barnevernet is structured to operate as a law unto itself”

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/18/read-about-norway-stealing-these-kids-then-tout-democratic-socialism/
    http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/06/under-international-pressure-norway-reunites-seized-children-with-family/



  • How convenient.

    Oh? You would rather they publish it all, and to heck with the effect on the kids?
    Wouldn’t that be lovely.
    “Here’s the name of the kids who were sexually abused by their parents or household members! Here’s the ones that had to have reconstructive surgery!”
    Even the US doesn’t give that many details– I know because my cousin is one of those “stolen” from her family for abuse. Her biological family burned her toes off. It was listed as simply “abuse.” (We only were told because my mom was afraid we’d notice and say something during the family reunion– bunch of kids playing in the lake.)
    ***
    From the one link admitting there’s a bit more going on than “religious indoctrination”, at your first link:
    Spanking is banned in Norway, so it is possible that some of the alleged child abuse in question would not be considered abuse by evangelicals in the United States. The child abuse allegations go beyond spanking, however, and further, whether or not the alleged abuse took place is irrelevant to the larger point at hand—the it is grossly misleading to center accusations of “Christian indoctrination” as the key issue in this case when in fact the key issue is accusations of child abuse.
    In fact, according to the children’s uncle, the formal accusations didn’t even mention religious indoctrination, focusing instead only on child abuse.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/01/norways-bodnariu-children-removed-over-child-abuse-not-christian-indoctrination.html#sthash.0yCLr8AG.dpuf

  • “At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:1-6)

  • “You would rather they publish it all, and to heck with the effect on the kids?”
    Of course not. I never even implied that, and you are wrong to state otherwise. All I was maintaining is that an agency that regards itself as a “law unto itself” would find such laws very convenient to avoid oversight.

    As far as the child abuse issue in the Bodnariu case is concerned, I am well aware of the facts. I mentioned it in my earlier post. If you read the second link you will see quite clearly that the Barnevernet DID see Pentacostal religious beliefs to be abusive.

    This thread concerns governments abusing children. I fail to understand why my posting facts about such a pattern in Norway can generate such a reaction. From a legal perspective the promotion of the adoption of children who are not legally the wards of the state is wrong. Period. It is obvious that the Barnevernet is operating with agendas that differ from protecting children. Seizing children and putting them in foster care when the facts do not warrant such action is abuse too.

  • TomD on Friday, July 22, A.D. 2016 at 6:55pm (Edit)
    “You would rather they publish it all, and to heck with the effect on the kids?”
    Of course not. I never even implied that, and you are wrong to state otherwise.

    Please, square the circle on how they’re supposed to comment on the specific details of why the kids are removed, but not publish information on why the kids are removed. Since you already declared how it is “convenient.”
    ***
    I fail to understand why my posting facts about such a pattern in Norway can generate such a reaction.
    Because you posted on a specific story where the vital detail of CHILD ABUSE was relegated to a tiny “oh, there’s some disagreement about why,” and tried to make it into a complete picture on every case that’s there.
    And according to the relatives of the people involved, it was about child abuse.

  • “Please, square the circle on how they’re supposed to comment on the specific details of why the kids are removed, but not publish information on why the kids are removed. ”
    Here’s how to square the circle: During proper oversight of the agency’s actions, the agency should be presenting reports to their superiors in government on exceptional cases without names. Oh wait, that’s right, there was no proper oversight, such as that which exists in every other democracy. Again, I need to point out to you that my comment about ‘How convenient’ applies to oversight and not to any other situation.

    “Because you posted on a specific story where the vital detail of CHILD ABUSE was relegated to a tiny “oh, there’s some disagreement about why,”…”
    If you (and anyone else) were to read all of the facts on the Bodnariu case you would know that the school principal and the medical professionals did not agree that the level of physical abuse was at the level that required removal. There was no bruising, every medical test showed that the children were not injured, and the children stated they were not afraid of their parents. Every professional involved in this case outside of the Barnevernet believed that counseling would be sufficient. Read the links I posted, they said so, as do some of the links inside the article you linked to.

    “…and tried to make it into a complete picture on every case that’s there.””
    Did you see the BBC film to it’s conclusion? It moves on to talk about one of the Czech immigrant cases that provoked the Czech president to make his Nazi comparison. It’s another ugly story, but the facts are even uglier than the those of the Bodnariu case. The Barnevernet seized an infant from the hospital on the grounds that she had not bonded with her parents.

    “And according to the relatives of the people involved, it was about child abuse.”
    I don’t care what that Patheos article says. The linked article of the uncle’s opinion is old, subject to translation errors (including the fact that the uncle likely intended to say that the Barnevernet verdict on their religious beliefs WAS that it was child abuse, and the Patheos author misrepresented this for her own agenda), and conflicts with well researched articles that stated otherwise, some of which I supplied the links above.

    Foxlier, I have to say that this is the second time I have had a go-around with you in which you took offense at something and then proceeded to ignore the facts in follow-up posts of mine. You continue to raise the same objections over and over. Please stop.

  • BTW, I have been searching for an article which states that immigrant families in Norway are over (as I recall) 300 times more likely to have their children seized by the Barnevernet than native Norwegian families. My apologies, I will keep looking for it and will post the link if I find it. Human nature being what it is, there is no way that number can be justified – Norwegians cannot be that relatively virtuous, not immigrants that relatively depraved. The Barnevernet MUST be engaged in discriminatory activities.

    It’s like the traffic stats in 1990’s South Africa, where whites owned 90% of the automobiles and 80% of traffic fatalities were black pedestrians. THAT tells a story of one kind or another. We all know the saying about lies and statistics, but sometimes stats don’t lie at all.

  • Again, I need to point out to you that my comment about ‘How convenient’ applies to oversight and not to any other situation.
    You said it in response to “they cannot comment on the reasons kids were removed.” That would be public comment. The subject that was on hand, because you were complaining about there not being public statements from the agency on why the kids were removed.
    Unless you’re now saying that you think they had no internal documents for why the kids were taken, even though the uncle who was allowed to comment on it said that the documents they got said child abuse?

  • Again, we are going round and round here. Do you know of any child protective agency in the U.S. that does not have public oversight? Do you know of any that could maintain a wall of silence around its decision making process in the manner seen in Norway, after the involved families go public with every fact they know? (Just who’s privacy is being protected here? Not the children’s) In my experience the answer is no. If the Norwegian laws are so ‘strict’ that they prevent proper oversight then they are wrong. Please stop defending them.

  • Again, we are going round and round here.
    No, you keep running off at random to make another extreme accusation in the form of a statement of fact.
    Usually after a counterpoint is made.
    Very different.

  • Fine. I’ll put it to a vote then. Does anyone else care to read this thread, watch the video in full, read all the linked articles, and then tell me that I’m making “extreme accusations”? Come on TAC readers, let me know what you think.

  • Again, jumping off in a new direction rather than supporting your claims, accusations and mind-reading.
    Truth isn’t determined by a vote.

  • “Truth isn’t determined by a vote.”
    I knew you were going to write that. My only answer must be that a person who believes that to apply to an exchange like this must have little respect for judges and juries. My evidence is not Divine, and neither is yours’. It is not that kind of truth.

    Let me ask you directly: is this acrimony the result of the hideous experience of your cousin? That poor child was horribly maimed, properly taken into state custody by the authorities, the parental rights of the monster(s) who maimed were taken away by a judicial proceeding, and then placed in an adoptive home that was carefully screened again by the authorities. That child was not “stolen”, she was protected. I don’t understand how you connected the facts of your cousin’s case with these Norwegian cases (your use of the word “stolen” shows that you did connect them). The severity of these cases are worlds apart. You must know that. As an adoptive parent I understand how the process is supposed to work.

    BTW, may I ask, how is your cousin today? I hope she is well.

  • Truth doesn’t matter to you. Got it.

  • It is gobsmackingly wrong that you’d appeal to the authority of juries while doing the thing that makes them somewhat useful– dismissing the relevant evidence and only consider that which supports your prior assumption.

  • Perhaps you knew I’d say that I would say that, because you know it as well.

  • Foxlier, you are the one who has repeatedly dismissed the evidence I’ve presented.-No, dismissed is the wrong word, ignored is more accurate,

    I wrote the last time you with this crap around with me, that the only other person who has been so irrational in a debate with me on a Catholic site is Mark Shea. At this point Don McClarey is going to have to ask me to stay, or I’m out of here. Enjoy your echo chamber.

  • Pointing out evidence from your own source which contradicts your conclusion is not “ignoring” or “dismissing.”

  • You cherry-picked from that one source, ignored the remainder of that source, and ignored the other sources. Less than 5% of the evidence supports you.

    Here’s ANOTHER piece of evidence (but then, you’d say it is ‘going all over the place’:
    From http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/2704-an-unfinished-debate-on-barnevernet

    …A challenge in modern democratic states is how to provide for children at risk of poverty, abuse, neglect and other dangers that might inflict harm. The main dilemma is how to provide for and protect children without intruding on the parent’s rights of privacy and their right to a family life of their own choosing. Moreover, child welfare services’ practices in some cases make the issue of child welfare more controversial than conflicting. One of the best illustrating examples of this problem is the latest barnevern crisis between India and Norway. Two kids of the NRI couple were taken under protective care last May by Barnevernet, which claimed emotional disconnect with the parents, and placed them in foster parental care as per the local Norwegian court’s directive.

    Cultural Biases and Misconceptions

    The family had accused the Norwegian authorities with cultural misunderstandings and prejudice as they were taken for being fed by hand and sleeping in the same bed as their parents in addition to insufficient toys to play in the house.After Indian Foreign Ministry intervened the investigation, the Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre helped children to be handed to children’s uncles.

    Russians Mobilized against Barnevernet with Russian Women’s Statements

    Even though this case was resolved in peace, it did not help to stop criticism against Norwegian children welfare authorities, who are said to abuse their power and be ignorant against cultural differences. The Indian media blamed the authorities for being arrogantly insensitive to child rearing under a different culture. Vanitha Srinavasan from The Hindu Business Line accused Norway of enforcing ‘one size fits all’ in human rights or child care. While similar articles are being published at Indian media, a group of Russians involved in the process. Outside the Norwegian Embassy in Moscow, the members of the youth organization of the ruling party, the United Russia made a demonstration with strong slogans.

    The protests came after Russian media have recently run a series of issues about how more and more Russian women living in Norway are deprived of their children. Especially two cases on Russian media were strong enough to mobilize the protestors. One of these news stories featured a Russian citizen, who lives in Norway, whose name is Maya Kasayeva. Her shocking staments took many newspapers’ front pages: “During the court hearings, the judge told me: ’We give you residence permit, and you give us your son.’ I refused, and then the repressions started.”

    Child Abuse Accusation against Host Families

    The claims in the second case were more outraging. Irina Bergseth Frolova, a Russian woman living in Norway, had found out that her ex-husband, a Norwegian citizen, as well as his friends and relatives, had been raping their four-year-old son. The reports also remind another foster father who was previously been found guilty for child pornography and child sexual abuse in Stavanger.

    In fact, the practices of Barnevern do not only worry Russians and Indians. There is a deep rooted skepticism among local groups towards an increased use of home based measures. A report prepared by Gruppen til Familiens Selvstendige Rett (GFSR), Redd Våre Barn (RVB) and BarnasRett concludes that current practices in the Norwegian Child Protection system are not compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Arild Holta, as an activist against children’s segregation from their parents asks for an urgent need to re-evaluate the fundamental principles along which the Child Protection system works in Norway. Familiestiftelsen is a foundation run based on similar concerns by a group of parents and grandparents. They feel upset at the lack of respect for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child with regard to the protection of children against mental and physical abuse and separation from parents and grandparents.

    A Growing Industry Open to Corruption

    Professor of linguistics at the University of Bergen, Marianne Haslev Skånland points out another problematic dimension of the child welfare system. According to Skånland, it is turning into an industry, which pays incredible amounts, especially to psychologists, for “reports” and to foster “parents”. They advertise for people to be foster parents and announce a yearly pay of, say, NOK 430.000 (€ 30.000) plus paid holidays and regular “time off” from the foster children plus allowances for building their house or buying an extra car plus pension entitlement. The business also, of course, provides extra income and extra jobs for social workers, writes Skånland. She also notes that child care cases often rely on information from anonymous sources. She thinks one never knows who the sources are, and whether the sources are reliable. Or whether the sources possess first hand information, or are pure rumors.

  • You cherry-picked from that one source, ignored the remainder of that source, and ignored the other sources
    You claimed they were removed for abuse via “having been told about sin and hell.”
    That is flatly false, according to the the uncle of the kids.
    The spanking that “didn’t help” is 1) child abuse in that country, and 2) not the worst abuse.
    When it was pointed out that the case actually involved child abuse, not “they were abused because of religious instruction,” you claimed you’d already covered it, dismissed it based on your judgement, and ran off to talk about something else. Then you’re pissed because I’m not persuaded by your assertion, and not running right along behind you.
    ****
    Here’s a radical idea, how about talking about something related to the actual subject of the post? If you want to write so much about it, do a blog article.
    I’m interested in the “teach the kids stupid radical junk is true starting when they’re too young to know better” subject, especially since I’m raising several and have to watch that we don’t move to a place where we’re required to do it, too.

  • Foxlier, you are just obtuse. I started my post of the general Norwegian situation, which IS indirectly related to this post, and the first case I cited was NOT the Bodnariu family but the Czech families. Go back and look, it’s true! The Bodnariu case was the SECOND case. YOU are the one who attempted to turn this into a debate that is solely ab9out the Bodnariu family. When I bring in other facts as cases (Indian, Russian, etc) you then criticize me for straying from the Bodnariu case, but it was NEVER entirely about the Bodnariu case. You know what? Even if you are right about the Bodnariu case, that does not negate those other cases!

    Am I pissed? You bet I am. Last of all I’m pissed off because now you ask “If you want to write so much about it, do a blog article. I’m interested in the “teach the kids stupid radical junk is true starting when they’re too young to know better” subject…” You know what? You want collaboration? Sorry, collaboration requires trust, and I don’t trust you. You and I both want to fight the good fight against the evils we face, we should be allies, but you have twice now treated me as an enemy. If you want to defeat junk and help the kids you should not be acting as you are. Enjoy your echo chamber.

  • The guy who’s repeatedly failed to respond to pretty dang basic points, or responded in ways that don’t actually address the points, is saying I’m slow to understand….
    You alluded to a general situation. You said/paraphrased this: The Czech president has compared them with the Nazi taking of Aryan looking children but actually cited, eventually, the Bodnariu family.
    Having finally been given a specific case, I looked at the case– and pointed out it wasn’t as you described, since you’d decided to ignore a huge chunk of the known facts involved, since you figured they didn’t matter.
    ****
    You want collaboration?
    No.
    As I’ve said repeatedly,
    I want to talk about
    the original post.
    You seem to very much want other people to listen and agree with your views on a totally different subject, to the point of flying off the handle when validation isn’t forthcoming.
    and I don’t trust you.
    What a coincidence, that’s pretty much where I ended up when you claimed that Norway labeled the kids as having been abused by “having been told about sin and hell,” and then it turns out to have been physical abuse including shaking the baby like a dishrag.
    From your own linked source. And I’m supposed to trust your judgment on the rest of it?
    If you want to defeat junk and help the kids you should not be acting as you are.
    Check for logs, dude, check for logs.

  • “…and then it turns out to have been physical abuse including shaking the baby like a dishrag. From your own linked source”

    MY linked source (http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/18/read-about-norway-stealing-these-kids-then-tout-democratic-socialism/) says “Medical examinations on the children had revealed no signs of injury—including an x-ray exonerating the parents from charges of shaking the baby”. It’s there, read it.

  • Which is totally relevant to the original reason they were taken. Because government officials can see through time.

Indoctrination Not Education

Monday, October 13, AD 2014

Indoctrination

 

Ericka Andersen at Victory Girls, gives us yet another example of the way in which education is often simple indoctrination these days:

 

The University of California-San Francisco is launching a new course on abortion, the first class of it’s kind.

The aim is to “contextualize abortion care within a public health framework from both clinical and social perspectives.”

What “Abortion: Quality Care and Public Health Implications” is really striving to do is normalize abortion as a typical healthcare procedure.

What they don’t acknowledge is that almost all abortions are elective — and only 3% are due to problems with the mother’s actual health. There are also a small percentage of abortions performed on rape or incest victims, but this is also about 3%. At least (and that’s being generous) 90% of abortions are elective — for reasons such as “not ready,” “too young,” “inconvenient,” “don’t want people to know I’m pregnant,” or “inadequate finances.”

Renowned abortion researcher Alan Guttmacher once said, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”

By the way, Guttmacher served as president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, but that’s just a little detail.

Abortion is almost never healthcare. If anything, it’s the opposite. Doesn’t a doctor pledge to, “First, do no harm.” It’s beyond comprehension how any doctor can perform abortions and remember that’s an oath they took. Of course, it wasn’t hard to find one who has no trouble with it.

“I think that if we can inspire even a small portion of the people who take the course to take steps in their communities to increase access to safe abortion and decrease stigma about abortion, then we have been totally successful,” Dr. Jody Steinauer, associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California – San Francisco said.

Steinauer noted that this “stigma” results in silence on the issue of and leads people “to believe that [abortion] is not common,” when it  is.

The course syllabus includes sections on “overcoming obstacles to abortion access” and “patient-centered care for first-trimester abortion.” Well, I’m glad to see they haven’t graduated to late-term abortion care but that can’t be too far down the road.

Here’s the thing, University of California, abortion will never be normalized. A 2012 Gallup poll showed that Americans lean pro-life by a nine point margin. You can’t deflect the reality of abortion, which is ending the life of a human being in growth. There’s literally no way around the science of when life begins. You can only justify in blind denial after that.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Indoctrination Not Education

  • “There’s literally no way around the science of when life begins ..”

    But what follows? In his 1995 essay, Rethinking Life and Death, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer famously demanded, “[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life” and he goes on to justify both abortion and infanticide.

    In 2012 a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, expressed similar views.

    In France, as long ago as 1975, the first article of the Veil Law ((Law No. 75-17 of January 1975, concerning the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy) declares, “The law guarantees respect for every human being from the outset of life. There shall be no derogation from this principle except in cases of necessity and under the conditions laid down by this Law.” If derogation from the right to life is permitted, there seems no logical reason why this should not apply after birth, as well as before it.

    For centuries before that, the common French euphemism for an abortionist was (and is) « faiseuse d’anges » [Angel Maker], scarcely the term anyone would have coined to describe the removal of a clump of cells.

    Is the beginning of life any longer relevant to the debate (if it ever was)?

  • “Is the beginning of life any longer relevant to the debate (if it ever was)?”

    Only to those who want to have ethics better than that of child murderers.

  • Rethinking Life and Death, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer famously demanded, “[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life” and he goes on to justify both abortion and infanticide.
    In 2012 a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, expressed similar views.
    .
    Peter Singer came from Australia. Germany refused to allow him to enter. Princeton gave Singer welcome. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva (a likely name from the goddess of wisdom) are not American citizens, either. None of these individuals have any idea about unalienable human rights, God given free will and endowed sovereign personhood.
    .
    “For centuries before that, the common French euphemism for an abortionist was (and is) « faiseuse d’anges » [Angel Maker], scarcely the term anyone would have coined to describe the removal of a clump of cells.”
    .
    Abortion is the removal of the rational, immortal human soul. Those who deny the soul have no legitimate excuse for being.

  • Abortion, like murder, is a sin against the Author of Life wherein the abortionist/murderer on instructions from the would-be father/mother violently destroys a gestational person: usurping God’s will. All life is His creation.

  • Just as abortion is being regularized within the culture, physician assisted suicide is the latest evolution of the right to control one’s body and one’s life.
    .
    Abortion and physician assisted suicide subsist under the same umbrella of individual liberty for which their proponents claim recognition and protection of the state. Those who promote life are maligned as opposing and placing obstacles in the path of individual liberty and self determination.
    .
    The mantra of “Compassion and Choices”, successor to the Hemlock Society, and a staunch proponent of physican assisted suicide is control and choice compassionately executed.
    .
    Should we be surprised that a right to life is no longer assured to those outside the womb?
    .
    See, https://www.facebook.com/CompassionandChoicesConnecticut
    .
    https://www.compassionandchoices.org/what-you-can-do/in-your-state/connecticut/

  • In a characteristically penetrating observation, Slainté asks, “Should we be surprised that a right to life is no longer assured to those outside the womb?”

    Frankly, no. For too long we have been led up the blind alley of “natura pura” – the notion of a “natural order,” governed by “Natural Law,” consisting of truths accessible to unaided human reason, as something that can be kept separate from the supernatural truths revealed in the Gospel.

    Against this, we have Maurice Blondel’s insistence that that we must never forget “that one cannot think or act anywhere as if we do not all have a supernatural destiny. Because, since it concerns the human being such as he is, in concreto, in his living and total reality, not in a simple state of hypothetical nature, nothing is truly complete (boucle), even in the sheerly natural order.” It was of Blondel that Cardinal de Lubac said, “he is the one who launched the decisive attack on the dualist theory that was destroying Christian thought.”
    Jacques Maritain, too, declared that “Man is not in a state of pure nature, he is fallen and redeemed. Consequently, ethics, in the widest sense of the word, that is, in so far as it bears on all practical matters of human action, politics and economics, practical psychology, collective psychology, sociology, as well as individual morality,—ethics in so far as it takes man in his concrete state, in his existential being, is not a purely philosophic discipline. Of itself it has to do with theology…”

    This is not new doctrine. One recalls Pascal who, drawing on the thought of St Augustine, reminded us long ago that “man without faith cannot know the true good, nor justice” and “without Scripture, which has only Jesus Christ for its object, we know nothing and see only obscurity and confusion in God’s nature and ours.”

  • MPS writes: “…One recalls Pascal who, drawing on the thought of St Augustine, reminded us long ago that “man without faith cannot know the true good, nor justice”
    .
    One wonders how Pascal might have responded to modern day secular uber-liberals who disregard the integrity of life in favor of a flawed understanding of personal liberty and choice?
    .
    Is there an antidote, other than Faith, which might cause proponents of “choice” to recognize that it is neither good or just to choose to extinguish life in the womb (abortion) or outside the womb (physician assisted suicide)?

  • Slainté asks, “Is there an antidote, other than Faith, which might cause proponents of “choice” to recognize that it is neither good or just to choose to extinguish life in the womb (abortion) or outside the womb (physician assisted suicide)?”
    Pascal, I believe, would not have been particularly sanguine. “On what shall man found the order of the world which he would govern? Shall it be on the caprice of each individual? What confusion! Shall it be on justice? Man is ignorant of it.” As to Natural Law, “Men admit that justice does not consist in these customs, but that it resides in natural laws, common to every country. They would certainly maintain it obstinately, if reckless chance which has distributed human laws had encountered even one which was universal; but the farce [la plaisanterie] is that the caprice of men has so many vagaries that there is no such law Theft, incest, infanticide, parricide, have all had a place among virtuous actions.”
    As for the civil law, he was a thorough Positivist: “He who obeys them [the laws] because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained [elle est toute ramassée en soi], it is law and nothing more.”

Reading, Writing and Reproduction

Tuesday, March 5, AD 2013

Chicago has an appallingly bad public school system.  Only 21% of eighth graders are proficient in reading. 40% of all students drop out.  Small wonder that 39% of the public school teachers in Chicago with children send their kids to private schools.  One would think that any sane administration of such a dysfunctional school system would have more than enough to do fixing it, without taking on new tasks.  People who believe this obviously have never been to Chicago.  As Matt Archbold at Creative Minority Report advises us, the Chicago Way is to dream up new boondoggles if you are failing at the task that the public is paying you to perform:

In real life if a man tries to talk about sex to a kindergartner he’d be removing a father’s knuckles from his teeth. But when school’s do it with your money, parents drop their kids off with smiles.
Please please vote in your local elections and make sure you’re aware of what your schools are teaching children in your town. Chicago is now actively destroying children’s innocence with taxpayer money:
ABC News reports:

While most U.S. public schools start sex education in the fifth grade, sex education will be coming to Chicago kindergartners within two years as part of an overhaul of the Chicago public schools sexual health program.
The new policy, which the Chicago Board of Education passed Wednesday, mandates that a set amount of time be spent on sex education in every grade, beginning in kindergarten.  Chicago has the third-largest public school system in the country, with 431,000 students.
“It is important that we provide students of all ages with accurate and appropriate information so they can make healthy choices in regards to their social interactions, behaviors and relationships,” Barbara Byrd-Bennett, the CEO of the Chicago Public School System, said in a statement. “By implementing a new sexual health education policy, we will be helping them to build a foundation of knowledge that can guide them not just in the preadolescent and adolescent years, but throughout their lives.”
Under the new policy, the youngest students – the kindergartners — will learn the basics about anatomy, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety. Through the third grade, the sex-ed lessons will  focus on the family, feelings and appropriate and inappropriate touching. In the fourth grade, students will start learning about puberty, and HIV.

This is just nuts. And by nuts I mean it makes perfect sense. When you’re attempting to indoctrinate a population, it’s best to start young.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Reading, Writing and Reproduction

  • This is just so infuriating. I don’t have children but if I did, I’d be seriously looking at homeschooling. This is just one more outrage in a long string of them in the public school systems, let alone the supposedly Catholic ones. Lord help us.

  • The time is overdue for a separation of School and State.

  • I dunno. If the little darlings learn that “stuff” as poorly as reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic . . .

  • Now, because the law has forsaken five or six years olds born into this country along with ~55,000,000 not born (counting just the past forty years), there are more souls of children to remember in prayer – living and dead. Without God, man is unbalanced.

  • The first thing the minor children will be taught is that government is God and that all of their unalienable rights come from government and that government trumps parental authority. The video said that parents are free to opt out, but the rights government gives the government can take away. Thomas Jefferson.

    Taxpayers have a right to attend the class of their children through parental rights and cannot be turned out by administration bullying.(as I was, once) Parents have a right to question what is being taught in their schools to their children. Lawsuits have a particularly strong influence on the administration. Isn’t this how atheists, homosexual pracitioners and militant abortionists get their way? The school does not have authority to sequester, a nice word, kidnap is better, your child. Child sexual abuse has many facets. Show and tell in a kindergarten sexual information class is at the discretion of the teacher.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EDITION | God & Caesar

Cult of Personality-Take 2

Saturday, September 26, AD 2009

A followup to my earlier post on school kids singing a hymn of praise to Obama.  Hattip to Gateway Pundit.  Apparently the video was posted on YouTube by the proud teacher behind this piece of agitprop.

“We began to write the song after watching the Inauguration. Our school day is packed bell to bell with academics, but were usually able to spend the last five minutes of singing songs as short ELD (English Language Development) activities. Day by day we used this tiny window of time to brainstorm lyrics. As the song took shape, the children became more and more proud of their accomplishment. It soon morphed into a tribute to MLK and others honored for their work towards social justice.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Cult of Personality-Take 2

  • “Oooo Im a proud American”

    “Political indoctrination in our schools-thank the NEA.”

    Donald, are you sure you’re not a closet hippie? Relocating to Canada anytime soon?

  • And miss participating in the rout of the party that you vote for Todd? Not on your glory & praise hymnal!

  • Swing and another miss, Donald. I don’t vote Dem on the federal level. We independents outnumber R’s by a 2-1 margin. We might well be a political force that exceeds both parties. Another try?

  • Actually Todd I believe Obama is a Democrat on the federal level and you have stated you voted for him.

    Here is a link to the politics collection on your website. You are as independent as Nancy Pelosi.

    http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/category/politics/page/8/

  • And from a comment you left on Inside Catholic last year:

    “I think you overstate the choice, Deal. Obama is a moderate. If he were a true liberal, he’d have moved beyond Nixon’s universal health care. A true secular liberal would be bringing the troops home on 21 Jan 2009, abolishing the death penalty, advocating same day registration and voting, resuscitating the ERA, overhauling the tax code, repealing NAFTA, legalizing cannabis, refinancing social security, signing Kyoto, and deporting Rupert Murdoch.

    The scare tactics are unimpressive, my friend. Some will be duped, but you are right this election does provide a clear choice. McCain will have to distance himself from the stain of immorality and incompetence of the past 7.4 years of Republican rule. As I’ve said elsewhere, the only thing saving the GOP right now is that in a two-party system the worst one can do is second place. If the US were a parliamentary democracy, W would already be gone and the party would be in shreds.”

    http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3851&Itemid=80

    If you don’t regularly vote Dem on the national level, I suspect it is because you view them as too conservative.

  • “You are as independent as Nancy Pelosi.”

    Strike three. But you get a bonus point for the research … or the portfolio you keep on me. I’m a registered independent. Proudly so. I don’t believe the Speaker has abandoned her party affiliation overnight.

    It is true I view President Obama as a moderate Democrat. If he were as liberal as Dennis Kucinich, say, he would be unelectable. I disagree with his handling of foreign policy in Afghanistan. I don’t like the people he has in Treasury or their policies. But I’m a realist when it comes to politics.

    Getting back to your meme I don’t think you’ve uncovered indoctrination any more than some on the Far Left have uncovered racism in the opposition to the president.

    It’s more accurate to say this is a tussle over celebritism and anti-celebritism. Americans have their heroes: politicians, athletes, and media stars on the whole. And Americans also indulge an anti-celebrity streak, as you and many other Catholic conservatives do. It’s not a surprise that conservatives, still feeling the sting of getting mangled in the past two federal elections, are somewhat more anti- these days. After all, who do you have as a serious contender right now?

    Donald, I think you just need to look a little deeper than your hurt feelings. Otherwise, this kind of conservative commentary comes off as Oprah-worthy whining.

    Take the last word, my friend. This has been a tough one for you.

  • Let’s see Todd you don’t vote for Dems on the federal level but you did vote for Obama. You do see the contradiction therein don’t you? As for last year’s election Todd, I think it is good for Americans to give the Dems complete power every generation or so. It often serves as an innoculation against that particular mistake for quite a few years. Doubtless Todd we will be seeing more of you at AC as the outlook grows increasingly bleak for the Dems in 2010, and I look forward to it. Peace, Todd.

  • Todd:

    “Oooo Im a proud American” is a perfectly admirable sentiment. But in context–especially in the absence of anything similar pre-Obama–it’s clearly–and only–a pep rally for The One. And I know you didn’t miss this part of the chorus:

    “YES WE CAN!”

    Just admit it’s a ham-handed (and in the long-term ineffective) bit of political proselytizing and attack the outrage from another angle.

    BTW, I missed your NFL preview this year. I hope you didn’t peg the Lions as anything better than 3-13. The team is better, but that’s not saying much given last year’s historical milestone.

  • “I missed your NFL preview this year. I hope you didn’t peg the Lions as anything better than 3-13. The team is better, but that’s not saying much given last year’s historical milestone.”

    Though I like the Vikings and always have and they did well this past Sunday vs. the Lions, there is no way imho that they deserved to win that one game versus the Lions last year. Calls by the officials helped Minnesota. And then, it would have been Brad Childress’ team that lost the only game that Detroit won last year.

    Pro Football is a bit of an oddity, why some teams can do well every year and there are some teams that hardly ever do well. In general, I’m against the dominant teams. Before the Salary Cap; for some reason, money I guess, the Cowboys and the 49ers were way ahead of everyone else.

  • Pingback: Cults of Celebrity and Anti-Celebrity « Catholic Sensibility
  • Remember Rev Jim Jones ? Time to open a Kool-Aid stand

  • Did you notice nobody was kneeling? Where oh where are the liturgical police when you need them.

  • The Cult of the Lions! Detroit Wins!

14 Responses to Cult of Personality? What Cult of Personality?

  • Yep, my comfort level with homeschooling goes up a little more every week.

    Here’s the Burlington schools superintendent’s response, which offers no apology whatsoever:

    Dear Burlington Township Families:

    Today we became aware of a video that was placed on the internet which has been reported in the media. The video is of a class of students singing a song about President Obama. The activity took place during Black History Month in 2009, which is recognized each February to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country. Our curriculum studies, honors and recognizes those who serve our country. The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized.

    If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. King, Principal of B. Bernice Young School, directly.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Christopher M. Manno,
    Superintendent of Schools

    http://www.burltwpsch.org/?pageID=00013&docset=super&docid=200910011

  • Lyrics that would otherwise never be allowed at this school suddenly become acceptable, just so long as you substitute the name “Barrack Hussein Obama” for “Jesus”:

    “Red or yellow, black or white, all are [equal] in his [or is it His?] sight.”

    Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.

    And to think that last year many of us were criticized (quite harshly in some quarters) for poking fun at the messianic overtones in much of the adulation towards Obama.

  • There is just about no chance I will ever send any of my children to a public school. That was the case before this, and this just re-affirms my opinion.

  • Why don’t we scrap the lame lyrics and poor tone and just chant:

    Duce! Duce! or Fuerher! Fuerher!

    This is just sick.

    But you’d better be nice to these kids, they will be watching you as you type, set your thermostat, fire a gun, hunt, drive a car, pray, etc. etc.

    Big Brother needs eyes everywhere and cameras can only do so much.

  • Good Lord.

    Have mercy on us, Jesus Christ, for we are a nation of frighteningly servile utter nitwits, singing praises to tubes of toothpaste and empty-suited politicians with gushing enthusiasm, while neglecting your altar, denying your Father, and rejecting your Spirit.

  • Except that these are just children, Knight and Excelsior, who were taught to parrot this nonsense by someone presented to them as a trustworthy adult. They may have vague notions of who “Barack Hussein Obama” is and what a “president” is, but it’s doubtful any of them really understood what they were chanting.

    The kids don’t worry me nearly as much as the adults who took advantage of their innocence in this exploitative indoctrination attempt.

  • Pingback: Red Skelton: Pledge of Allegiance « The American Catholic
  • cminor,

    It isn’t the kid in and of themselves that frighten me. It is what is being done to them and what that may make them do.

    What is taught in today’s clasroom is tomorrow’s policy.

  • I love the part were they do the little “sieg heil”, “sieg heil”, “sieg heil”, with the nazi salute. It looks a lot like this:

    http://www.authordon.com/images/site_graphics/hilter_youth_mind_contol.jpg

    or this:

    http://www.authordon.com/images/site_graphics/YouthColor.jpg

  • Pingback: Cult of Personality-Take 2 « The American Catholic
  • Can I ask an rather obvious question? Is this a one-off activity? Or is there a clear and consistent pattern? Where is the actual evidence besides these seemingly isolated youtube videos?

    It seems unless there is a clear established pattern of consistent activities like this within all schools that we are over-interpreting things. To claim this is the establishment of a “cult of personality” is to severely trivialize what a cult of personality actually is and what it actually looks like (sorry, the “cult” around Obama is nowhere even remotely close in scope to Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Hussein, Jong-Il, etc.)

    It could just be a poorly conceived activity. Lord knows I had to go through a few of them in my schooling…

  • John,

    if you see 5 or 10 roaches in your kitchen, do you assume they are isolated roaches? The fact is that there are obviously far more incidents which have not been videoed at all, and many that never found their way to Youtube.

    Nobody is claiming that the cult of personality is currently at the level you mention, but those cults I’m sure started more isolated and progressed. That’s what we’re trying to stop.

  • @ Matt- are you comparing the public education system to a roach infestation? So is your solution is to fire all the teachers (cockroaches), seeing as the teacher (cockroach) who led the activity is supposedly a harbinger of all the other teachers (cockroaches) also leading similar activities? Maybe we need another analogy…

    Is it obvious? I’m not so sure it is. Is it a “fact?” A fact is something “known to exist/have existed.” Apparently we have a few videos that prove one thing- these classes sang songs about Obama. Are they tasteless? Yes. Are they totally out of place in an elementary school classroom? ABSOLUTELY. Are they evidence of a state-sponsored attempt to hijack the brains of today’s children? Not sure about that…

    Unless I see clear evidence 1) that students participate in repeated activities (aka, more than one) of this sort and 2) of a centralized mandate coming from Obama or Arnie Duncan or whoever that schools must comply with regarding COP activities, I will chalk this up to highly localized decisions on the part of individual teachers to be dealt with on a local level. How are we so sure that these activities aren’t simply the products of poor lesson planning? Why pick a conspiracy of nefarious intent over simple incompetence?

    It is also amazing that for conservatives (the ones typically leading the accusations of a COP) that government is so incompetent on EVERYTHING, but Obama can somehow successfully implement an initiative to program the youth in a little over 8 months of his term in Office. Why the sudden assumption of competence?

    While the activities are poorly conceived, let’s not go crazy about it. I am actually pretty critical of Obama, but I really feel this COP stuff is overstating the available evidence.