With the way things are of late, none of the following  should be a surprise of any kind to any of us observing the current trends and  the news.
Godspeed,
Gill  Rapoza
Veritas Vos  Liberabit
Public  Schools Embrace Debauchery & Apostasy Over Christmas Music 
By: Frederick  Meekins
January 1, 2010 issue of Ether Zone.
Most Americans would agree that freedom of conscience  ranks among our most cherished liberties. As such, the state should protect this  particular right by almost any means necessary and reasonable (especially for  citizens).
In California, an initiative has been undertaken to get  a ballot before voters to determine the propriety of Christmas music in  California public schools. Within the measure is a clause that would require  schools to notify parents 21 days before the specified tunes would be played or  performed so that students can opt out of being exposed to such  material.
Those having embraced a rigorous interpretation  regarding the separation of church and state will applaud the measure as a  enlightened compromise as these voices will be among the first to point out  that, in these swinging days of free thought, not everyone embraces the  Christianity espoused by these Yuletide harmonies. One must ask then would the  exponents of the unsullied conscience be as outspoken in defense of those  wanting to be excused from exposure to more progressivist causes and  material.
Absolutarian relativists claim that, in order to ensure  the scholastic neutrality of the classroom, not even a whiff of religious  material can be permitted to waft across young impressionable minds. That might  be what is claimed in theory, but the reality falls far short as an exclusionary  objectivity is applied only to Christianity with other worldviews and religions  actually imposed upon students.
Any rational person will admit that, in order to have  the most comprehensive understanding of the world possible, one must have an  understanding of religion as one of history’s most influential motivating  forces. However, there is a point at which education becomes  advocacy.
For example, it has already been stated that even if  authorized, traditional Christmas music will be categorized as quasi-subversive  in nature as one has to admit exposure to these lyrics could potentially alter  the very spiritual identity of those exposed to them. However, such caution is  not exercised in regards to Islam.
According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled “Islamic  studies required in California district” posted 1/2/02, students there are  required to learn about this prominent world religion. However, students were  not going to be doing this via the traditional social studies methodology of  reading a standard text detached in tone about the tenets of this system of  belief and its impact upon the world in terms of history, geography, and  culture. Rather, the curriculum required students to live out Islam. This was to  be achieved by having students memorize Koranic verses, praying in the name of  Allah, adopting an Islamic name, and staging a pretend jihad.
Wonder if the name Nadal Malik Hassan mmmmmm, mmmmm,  mmmmmm is available with students able to pretend to shoot up an army base. When  one takes all this into consideration, the above lesson plan sort of looses its  grade school charm, doesn’t it?
Mass death brings up yet another disturbing point.  According to Islamic teaching, all one has to do to become a Muslim is to say  with conviction that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his  prophet.
Parents need to seriously investigate if this is one of  the Islamic phrases being chanted in the public schools where an  accommodationist approach to the study of Islam has been adopted, and if it has,  parents need to be quite insistent as to having their children removed from the  program even if it means withdrawing from the particular school all together.  For you see, to a sizeable percentage of Muslims around the world, one is  justified in murdering someone that apostasizes or leaves the  faith.
To many, this may seem like theological nitpicking on  the scale of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.  However, should we, with little resistance, be giving these fanatics another  reason with a straight face to kill Americans?
Numerous Muslims will insist that their faith does not  condone the slaughter of innocent people. They just don’t tell you that their  definition of innocent is much narrower than ours. Never has an insincerely or  regretfully sung Christmas Carol resulted in anyone’s death.
The hypertolerant will sneer that this extremism of  either Christians wanting everyone to sing Christmas tunes or Islamists  demanding students recite the Koran and even miss recess as a simulated form of  Ramadan fasting are shortcomings inherent to the traditional religious mindset  irrespective of the belief system in question. However, the agnostic reprobate  can’t resist to impose their belief on everyone else either.
To both the pagan who sees the natural world as God and  the materialist who believes in nothing beyond the natural world, there is  nothing as important as the reproductive pleasure cravings we all posses and  know as the sex drive. Since it is claimed that there is no absolute truth in  these particular worldviews, the “is” automatically becomes the “ought” and  however the libidinous impulse manifests itself is acceptable upon the  particular social context. Therefore, those wanting a world with the fewest  taboos possible have a vested interest in convincing the greatest number  possible to this perspective.
And unlike the Christian and even the Muslim for all  that matter, this persuasion is not so much for the benefit of the soul of the  person whose mind the adherents of these respective outlooks are out to change.  Rather those trapped in lives of carnal destitution are so wracked by personal  guilt that they cannot bear the thought of others disapproving of their  individual predilections. That is why students cannot be permitted to privately  make their own decisions about what we are continually reminded are private  decisions.
When it comes to matters of traditional religious  belief, the secularists believe that children should not be exposed to theology  until they reach maturity. However, when it comes to conjugal relations,  indoctrination is suppose to commence nearly the first day of  kindergarten.
In June 2009, a California school district approved a  mandatory homosexual appreciation curriculum. As part of the curriculum, five  year olds will study a book titled “And Tango Makes Three” about two “gay”  penguins that hatch an egg together. They name the chick “Tango” because “...it  takes two to make a Tango.”
This propaganda will cause mental damage that will take  years to undue if it can be done so at all. Likely contrary to the mantra of the  illustrated tractate, these were not the two that made Tango.
Like it or not, a male and a female penguin had to  copulate together in order for little Tango to be brought into existence. All  the two penguins in the story can do is raise him.
Do four and five year olds really need to be exposed to  the intricacies of human relationships and reproduction? Most can barely tie  their own shoes.
The lessons learned about the biological impossibility  of a child having two parents of the same sex and what ought to be a legal  impossibility as well since two unmarried people shackedup should not be  permitted to simultaneously adopt the same child will not stop in kindergarten.  They will be expanded upon from year to year as the student progresses through  the statist school system.
In the first grade, according to WorldNetDaily, the book  “Who Is A Family” will dupe students into believing that “in our school and our  community there are many different kinds of families that provide love and care  to each other. Remind the students that all family structures are equally  important.”
Do these “equally valid family structures” include  fundamentalist polygamist Mormons? Does this also include radical Islamist  families where the fathers murder their daughters in so-called “honor killings”  for exhibiting such proclivities towards harlotry such as wanting to pursue  higher education and not wanting to wear burlap bags over their faces? After  all, even if we find these practices abhorrent, it must be reminded they fall  under the rubric of “all” family structures being equally  valid.
Technically, a number of the social arrangements being  promoted as such aren’t even families. But Western society has become so  unhinged morally that only the most daring are publicly willing to enunciate  these observations.
A family consists of a married man and woman and any  children that might result from their union or any children such adults united  together might adopt. If one is feeling especially innovative and cutting edge,  one might be able to expand the definition to include the unmarried propagating  offspring via fornication.
However, no matter how much we might want it to be so,  the non-biologically related unmarried adult residing in the home with the  actual parent is not part of the family. They might be the concubine or harlot  of the adult residing in a particular domicile, but they can only be a friend or  acquaintance of the child not all that different in terms of relationship than  the next door neighbor.
Even if the laws are altered to let anyone live anyway  they want with all the accompanying tax breaks and even welfare handouts to  which they claim they are entitled, it will not be enough. The consciences of  those living in manners contrary to both theology and biology are so pricked  that they will not be content letting you simply put up with the iniquities they  have wrought but also compel you to applaud and embrace these appalling  decisions.
Fourth graders will be required to read an essay titled  “My School Is Accepting—But Things Could Be Better”. Along with this assignment,  elementary students will be required to define “gay”, “lesbian”, and “LGBT”. By  the way, to the pure of mind, that acronym is not a reference to a deli  sandwich.
About all children need to know about human reproduction  at that age is that babies somehow grow inside women’s stomachs. My grandfather  didn’t know what the word “pregnant” meant until after he got married in his  early 20’s and he came from a family of ten kids that lived on a farm. Things  might not need to be that hushed over, but neither does everything need to hang  out in the open classroom either.
As part of the curriculum, students will be extended the  opportunity to learn of the warped affections of Elton John, Ellen Degeneres,  Christina Aguilera, and Lance Bass. Are we going to also learn about the  preferred bodily orifices of other historical figures such as Thomas Jefferson’s  alleged bout of jungle fever?
In all likelihood, his name won’t even come up in class.  Familiarity with the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and third  president might fortify students against the efforts to deprive them of their  liberty.
In their preparation for world conquest and hegemony, do  Red Chinese pupils sit around discussing what celebrity likes what hole? Maybe  if American students spent less time on these frivolities, educators would find  the traditional 180 day school year sufficient and no longer need a reason to  threaten an extended academic calendar.
It is claimed such acculturation (more accurately  indoctrination) is necessary to prevent bullying. However, wouldn’t a  generalized policy of don’t make fun of anyone at school without bogging down  young minds with things that would make even grown adults blush and giggle in  mixed company be enough?
Familiarity breeds contempt. Though social engineers  might try their hardest, human nature is pretty set within established  parameters and as such these educators might end up stirring up the very  animosities this ideological indoctrination is suppose to  prevent.
Whether this contraindicated outcome is what is actually  desired or not could be open to debate. The state benefits even more when the  results are the opposite of peace and understanding as activists believe they  are then justified in calling for additional restrictions on speech and  thought.
Isaiah 5:20 warns, “Woe unto them that call evil good,  and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put  bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” American society is swiftly approaching  the point of no return when those that run our educational institutions would  rather the nation’s children be acquainted with the most shameful of deeds and  desires rather than the noblest of truths that have inspired the highest of  ideals for millennia
“Published originally at EtherZone.com :  republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink  intact.”
Frederick Meekins is a free  lance writer and a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
Gill  Rapoza
Veritas Vos  Liberabit

No comments:
Post a Comment