ChristiansUnite Forums

Parents urged to boycott homosexual indoctrination
'Day of Silence' in schools 'about coercing students to repudiate traditional morality'

What if homosexuals staged a huge promotion of that sexual lifestyle choice, and no one came to see it? That's exactly what a coalition of organizations is proposing for April 25, this year's "Day of Silence," which is sponsored in public schools across the nation to promote homosexuality.

"It's outrageous that our neighborhood schools would allow homosexual activism to intrude into the classroom," said Buddy Smith of the American Family Association, one of a long list of organizations asking parents to keep their students home from school on that day.

"'Day of Silence' is about coercing students to repudiate traditional morality. It's time for Christian parents to draw the line – if your children will be exposed to this DOS propaganda in their school, then keep them home for the day," he said.

The "Day of Silence" promotion is intended, ostensibly, to make students "aware" of the "discrimination" suffered by homosexuals in society, by having students remain silent for the day. Such events typically are organized by a school's "Gay-Straight Alliance" group, but the event has been promoted for its previous 11 years by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an organization with the agenda of establishing homosexual advocacy organizations such as GSAs in all schools in the nation.

The pro-family coalition said the event "is designed to pressure students to regard homosexual, bisexual, and transgender behavior as normal and worthy." It said the teaching environment is disrupted by the event because some students "and even some teachers" remain silent through the school day.

"Protesters wear T-shirts and hand out 'speaking cards' protesting alleged injustice, harassment, prejudice, and discrimination toward 'LGBT' people and their 'allies,'" the coalition said.

Linda Harvey, a spokeswoman for Mission America, told WND, "It's incredibly important that parents be very aware because things are quickly getting to a bizarre level."

A parent in Massachusetts was jailed when he objected to his kindergarten son being presented with a public school district book advocating homosexuality, and in California, lawmakers have written a law requiring teachers to present only positive representations of such alternative lifestyle choices.

Such events only "honor" such alternative lifestyles, she said.

"When a parent finds out about this kind of event, they need to take immediate action, join with other parents. They need to go to the school board. They need to be persistent. They will get a cold shoulder from those who say, 'We've never heard this [concern] before.' Those are standard responses. They need to be persistent, and very, very discerning about what's really going on and who's advocating this," she warned.

The harm being done is enormous, she noted.

"We need to be very, very concerned about the harm, for our own children and all of these children," she said. "[Under such indoctrination,] we are creating barbarians. Parents want something other than barbarians living down the street. They need to care about their own kids. They need to take this seriously. Your kids are learning to respect this behavior."

Besides being morally objectionable, such lifestyles present enormously higher risks for children for HIV and other related health damage, she noted.

"[Parents] need to decide this is real, this is extremely damaging. And it's only going to get worse. In the early 1990s there were a handful of homosexual clubs at schools. Now there are about 3,500-4,000 in high schools and they are increasing. The big trend now is in middle schools. GLSEN has made it a goal to have homosexual clubs in every school K-12. They're going to make it if we don't stand up and be counted," she said.

Matt Barber, a spokesman for Concerned Women for America, said the day "amounts to educational malpractice."

"“Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It is the height of impropriety and cynicism for 'gay' activists and school officials to use children as pawns in their attempt to further a highly controversial and polarizing political agenda," he said.

"Social activism does not belong in the classroom," added Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth.

The coalition is suggesting parents ask their school districts about "Day of Silence" plans, especially the date because some school districts vary. Then, the group said, parents should "inform the school of our intention to keep your children home on that date and explain why."

Then parents should talk with their children about the issue and explain homosexual behavior is not an "'innate identity,' it is sinful and unnatural," the coalition suggested. And church and religious leaders should be encouraged to organize opposition to public school promotion of homosexuality.

"The director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force broke homosexual activists' code of silence on the threat homosexual behavior poses to young people's health when he admitted this month that HIV 'is a gay disease,'" said Gary Glenn of AFA Michigan. "GLSEN should cancel its celebration of that code of silence about the severe public health hazards of homosexual behavior, and any school administrator who continues to stand silent while enabling the promotion of such harmful behavior should be sued for criminal negligence."

Among those in the coalition are:

    * Abiding Truth Ministries

    * American Family Association

    * AFA of MI

    * AFA of PA

    * Americans for Truth

    * Christian Information Service

    * Christian Civic League of Maine

    * Concerned Women for America

    * Culture Campaign

    * Defend the Family International

    * Exodus Mandate

    * Illinois Family Institute

    * Indiana Voice for the Family

    * Informing Christians

    * Liberty Counsel

    * MassResistance

    * Mission America

    * New Generation Christian Center

    * Parents' Rights' Coalition

    * Right March

    * Stephen Bennett Ministries

    * Values USA

    * and Watchmen on the Walls

Exodus Mandate works fulltime on its campaign to encourage and help Christian families to leave Pharoah's school system, and spokesman Chaplain E. Ray Moore warned Christian parents of the costs of letting their children remain is a system that advocates homosexuality.

"Based on statistics, there is a 70-to-80 percent chance that a [Christian] child will abandon the church and their faith in a public school career," Moore has told WND. The bottom line, then, is Christian parents need to lobby their pastors, pastors need to lobby their denominations, and their denominations need to start programs creating and operating public schools, he said.

There's also a new organization in California, called California Exodus and operating with the slogan Rescue Your Child, seeking to remove 600,000 children from California's public schools because of that state's mandatory promotion of homosexuality.

Brothers and Sisters,

What we are really talking about here is our rights that are secured under the Law and the Constitution.  Many generations of our youngest and finest have fought and died for these rights, so they didn't come cheaply. We also fought a Revolutionary War for these rights and demanded that our religious freedoms be protected forever by Law and the Constitution.

We MUST NOT give away these RIGHTS! NOBODY has the power to take them away from us without a VOTE of the people and changes to the Law and Constitution. We live in a society where the people are in charge - NOT some DICTATOR and certainly NOT some judge trying to make law without the authority. We CAN'T ALLOW these renegade judges to get by with what they are attempting to do. Their individual thoughts and preferences are worth absolutely nothing except ONE VOTE. Their ONLY POWER is in the application of the LAWS of the PEOPLE. These judges MUST OBEY the LAWS OF THE PEOPLE, and their oath of office includes a solemn promise to uphold the Law and the Constitution. They don't have the POWER to do a single thing outside of what the PEOPLE'S LAW AND CONSTITUTIONS PERMITS.

Brothers and Sisters, the issues involved ARE NOT TECHNICAL, DIFFICULT, OR SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. These issues aren't even a matter for debate unless the debates are for the benefit of the public before a PUBLIC VOTE. Otherwise, these issues are the MOST BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS. ONLY THE CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THEM - NOT THE JUDGES! The JUDGES don't have a say on these issues WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS FROM THEIR BOSS - THE PEOPLE! These judges don't work from some third world dictator - RATHER THEY WORK FOR A FREE PEOPLE!

There does come a time when the appropriate thing to do is JUST SAY NO! AND MEAN IT! This is one of those times. Reasonable means should be exhausted, but the end answer is NO! This is already the CHOICE and LAW of the PEOPLE, and these judges need to be firmly reminded that they DO HAVE A BOSS. They might also need to be reminded that they can also face CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES. People who violate the CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW GO TO PRISON!

It Takes a Village to Raise an Idiot: California and Parental Rights
by Dr. Brian C. Melton

For teachers unions and education bureaucrats, compulsory school attendance is a tool of social control.

Educated people today seem to be embracing concepts that clearheaded philosophers of an earlier era would quickly recognize as lunacy. An interviewee of the San Francisco Chronicle (long known as a nationally ranked platform for less-than-brilliant comments) has recently trotted out one of the oldest, but most disturbing ideas: that the government has a more basic claim on children than parents do. In doing so, she made the following statement:

    [Leslie] Heimov [executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles] said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety."

Though her basic position is essentially worthless, Heimov’s comment contains a few instructive points.

First, Heimov displays a shocking misunderstanding of the rights and responsibilities of parents.  Essentially, she is arguing that the state of California needs to systematically protect children from their own families. The presupposition that undergirds this kind of thought is that the state is primarily responsible for the welfare and development of all children. The government may often choose to delegate some of its role to parents, but it reserves the “right” to revoke parental authority whenever it chooses and for whatever reason. Children only belong with their parents so long as what the parents do is pleasing to the state.

Next, Heimov also inadvertently reveals what is really going on here (a fact that none of the few web comments I looked at below the article picked up on): For groups like hers this is not about parents being qualified to instruct their children in a range of academic subjects and life skills; compulsory school attendance is a tool of social control. They believe that parents in general cannot be trusted to raise children properly and so the state must have a mechanism that allows it to observe and intervene at will. While the word “safety” generally applies to physical danger, the courts and activists of California have already shown that they will use the broadest possible sense of the word. This has the potential to produce a truly Orwellian state of affairs.

If the parents of California give up their rights as parents to the government, they should not be surprised to see the government begin to exercise those rights.  The “Govenator’s” recent comments are encouraging, but Californians should stand behind him and act decisively.

A second point emerges from the way the Chronicle staff employed the quotation. It was literally the final word of the article, apparently intended as a complete rejoinder to the statement from the seemingly misguided homeschoolers. The author offered no analysis or critique of the asinine idea that parents should have to complete some ridiculous course in non-sense secular humanist educationese before they become magically “qualified” to care about their children’s “ongoing safety.” The Chronicle accepted the idea at face value, as if it were actually something resembling common sense and intelligence. The very fact that one well-educated children’s professional could make such a statement and an equally well-educated journalist could repeat it as unchallenged truth is more than enough to demonstrate that there is “something rotten” in the state of California.

Frankly, I can understand how Heimov and the Chronicle can mistakenly think that our children are now the government’s responsibility. As American culture continues its rapid decline into self-centered imbecility, more and more parents are indeed abdicating their rights and failing in their responsibilities.  This leaves the rest of society to live with the results. Who will step into this gap? In an earlier time, it would have been the churches, relatives, and local communities; those most competent to really intervene in a meaningful way. Today, people reflexively expect the state and federal governments to assume control. This is unfortunate on at least two levels. First, the government (especially as influenced by modern educational theorists) is the least qualified to act in a parent’s stead. Second, as we see here in California, the government tends to go after just those parents who are the least likely to need supervision: parents who care enough about their children’s future to take a personal hand in shaping it.  So, far from really fixing the problem, the philosophies advocated by Heimov and the Chronicle only make matters worse while trampling on parental rights in the process.

The simple fact is that it takes parents to raise children, but a village to make them into idiots.

by Dr. Brian C. Melton

Dr. Brian C. Melton is an Assistant Professor of History at Liberty University and the author of Sherman’s Forgotten General: Henry W. Slocum.

Home Schooling Poses a Threat to The State
By Thomas E. Brewton

Socialism, of which liberal-progressivism is the American sect, is more than control of the economy.  Most importantly it is mind-control through the public education system.

The Washington Times reports the latest liberal-progressive-socialist curtailment of personal freedom.

    "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to educate their children in their own home," said the Feb. 28 ruling by the California Appellate Court for the second district.

When they wish to overrule long-standing political liberties, liberals look to precedents of so-called international law and other nations' customs.  The socialist European Union, and Germany specifically, provide ammunition for abrogating educational liberties.

Why the animus of liberal courts and teachers' unions against home schooling?

The obvious answer is that home schooling does a better job, revealing the poor quality of public education.  Less obvious is the desire of home-schooling parents to teach Judeo-Christian moral principles, which directly conflicts with the public school aim of teaching the secular religion of liberal-progressive-socialism.  Propagating that mind-set necessitates identifying as ignorance all ideas of fixed and timeless moral principles.

Such was the work primarily of John Dewey, the leading liberal-progressive theoretician of the early 1900s.  He taught Columbia University students that Darwinian evolution had proved that everything, including morality, was continually evolving.  In such a world there can be no timeless principles of morality.  Rules for social behavior are simply whatever intellectuals think they ought to be in matters of sexual orientation, sexual promiscuity, and every sort of sensual gratification.

Under the impact of such schooling, the traditional family unit is no longer the bedrock of society.  The norm tends toward single-parent units.  Home-schooling by parents in traditional families is, to that style of moral relativism, a direct affront.

There is now abundant evidence, in all parts of the nation, that public-education students are inoculated with anti-Americanism and a moral relativism that will not even condemn the Nazi Holocaust.  Liberal-progressivism teaches students that there are no real differences among nations, races, and cultures, even sexes.  We are all homogeneous and ready for a single world government that will end wars and guarantee harmony and economic plenty, equally for all.  In such a world, callow students must be conditioned to see every atrocity from the other guy's viewpoint and to avoid all judgments of right or wrong.

Liberal-progressives, it will be remembered, sympathized with Al Queda and blamed 9/11 on the capitalist greed of the United States.

The recent death of William F. Buckley, Jr. reminds us that, by the late 1940s, this disintegration of historical education was well established.  Ivy League universities such as Yale had long since abandoned their founding mission of educating Puritan ministers.  They had, as Buckley documented in God and Man at Yale, become overwhelmingly slanted toward liberal-progressivism.

Liberal-progressive-socialism is a world paradigm in which greedy capitalists become rich by grinding workers down to bare-subsistence levels of income, while forcing the workers to buy whatever products they produce, at whatever prices they elect to charge.  Hence the endless harping in the New York Times about income inequality.

In that paradigm, social justice demands that the undeservedly rich capitalists be expropriated, either by seizing their property and placing it under collective ownership, or by imposing a multitude of regulations that convey the rights of ownership to the political state.  This is known as socialization.

The most important element of liberal-progressive-socialism, however, is control of the educational system.  Henri de Saint-Simon, who systematically conceptualized socialism in the first decades of the 19th century, wrote that the educational system must be controlled by the highest level of the political state's intellectual councils, so that nothing other than the doctrine of socialism may be taught.

Thomas E. Brewton had the extraordinary good fortune to study political philosophy under Eric Voegelin and Constitutional law under Walter Berns.