About that new Ontario sex ed indoctrination

This morning I had to listen to pious politically correct indocrination on the CBC about how wonderful and necessary Ontario's new sex ed program is. I am so tired of propaganda being treated like the latest truth. The gal from PFLAG actually talked about how ideas had evolved, like she was the high priestess of progressive faith. As Iain Benson, formerly with the Centre for Cultural Renewal, used to say, why should schools now force sexual dogma--because that is what this is---down the throats of school children when they won't allow mention of Jesus in public schools.

Well thank God for the Citizen and the National Post.

The Citizen spoke with Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast:

TORONTO — Two prominent Ottawa Catholic leaders — including Archbishop
Terrence Prendergast — spoke out Wednesday on the province's new sex-ed
curriculum, pointing to what appears to be an emerging rift between the
government and its publicly funded Catholic schools.

-snip-

The most obvious element rejected by Catholic schools will be a third-grade
lesson on "visible and invisible differences" that features discussion of
homosexuality.

-snip-

Neither McGuinty nor Education Minister Leona Dombrowsky gave any
indication Catholic boards would be entitled to their own version of the
document. "This is the Ontario curriculum, and it's the curriculum for all
schools and all students," Dombrowsky said Wednesday.

Dombrowsky, a former Catholic school board trustee in eastern Ontario,
went on to say the ministry had worked with the Catholic Church on the document.
"We have listened to their input and it is my understanding that they do support
the document we have presented."

Religious groups have raised concerns over that treatment of
homosexuality in the document, as well as questioning the timing of its
introduction into the curriculum. It is currently set to be discussed with eight
year olds.

In an interview, Prendergast said he didn't believe in the need
for a revised, 21st century curriculum that begins with lessons on body parts in
Grade 1 and explicitly mentions "vaginal and anal intercourse" in Grade 7.

-snip-

"I think parents are the first teachers of faith and moral issues to
children," he added.
Prendergast urged parents to assert their own thoughts
on the new course design and then relay them to officials. Government would have
to act if they were met with "a firestorm of response," he said.

Then this excellent editorial in the National Post:

Ontario is poised to inaugurate a new and explicit sex education curriculum
in September. According to a detailed outline posted on the Ministry of
Education's website in January, children in Grade 3 will for the first time
learn about "invisible differences" between people, including those of gender
identity and sexual orientation, while Grade 6 and 7 students will receive
information about "vaginal lubrication" and "anal intercourse."

-snip-


You don't have to be religious to recognize the incompatibility of
early instruction around sexuality with, dare we say it, the "settled" science
around the "latency period" of childhood. In this schema, the second sexual
phase in children following infancy and early childhood, from the age of six to
12, is a period in which direct sexual energies fall dormant. During this phase,
the child gathers his inner resources and develops mental and physical strength
for entry to young adulthood. Only at adolescence do hormonal changes create the
appropriate psychological context for absorbing ideas about "gender identity"
and sexual ethics in a meaningful light. Until that time schools should butt out
of sex education.

Latency-period researchers explain that it is precisely
because children are not dominated by sexualized thinking between early
childhood and adolescence that they are optimally attuned to, and most highly
educable in, the areas crucial to cultural self-realization: reading, 'riting
and 'rithmetic.

Bending children's imagination in a sexualized direction they
would not naturally take distracts them from the work they should be devoting
themselves to, and raises fears in social conservatives, possibly
well-founded--for these are very uncharted waters, whatever liberal theorists
may say -- that the curricula will promote early, indiscriminate and amoral
sexual experimentation.