Friday, March 30, 2012

The Ontario Government is Bullying Parents and Catholics in the Name of Anti-Bullying Laws!

How hypocritical can you get. The whole homosexual rights charade is nothing more than a fig leaf for totalitarians who want to break apart the family and destroy the influence of the Church.

A rally organized by Concerened Catholic Parents of Ontario took place yesterday at the Provincial Legislature. Here is a report from the PAFE (Parents as First Educators) newsletter.
(Toronto, March 30, 2012) Parents as First Educators spokesman, Teresa Pierre, told a crowd of 2000 outside the Ontario Legislature Building on Thursday afternoon that her members support any anti-bullying bill that adds new tools to fight bullying but that they oppose bill 13 because it mandates an equity curriculum that parents oppose. Parents are particularly concerned about the provision of age-inappropriate material to children of young ages in the sexual education component and elsewhere. "How much more strongly do parents have to say that they want less sexualization of children, not more?" she asked. The crowd of Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus responded with enthusiastic cheers.

Onlookers said how much they enjoyed hearing the different faith-perspectives of various groups. The common denominator was concern to protect children against bullying, but with measures that respect their faith traditions. Many groups, including non-Catholic groups, said that Liberal Education Minister Laurel Broten's attempt to override the statements of Catholic bishops opposed to having GSAs in Catholic schools was a kind of thought control no Canadian should support.

Inside Queen's Park MPPs were debating Conservative anti-bullying bill 14. MPP Glen Murray said that the Catholic faith teaches that homosexuals are disordered. Outside speaker Jack Fonseca from Campaign Life Coalition stated that the Church does not condemn or say that individuals are intrinsically disordered by virtue of same-sex attraction. Murray attempted to paint members of ordinary mainstream denominations demonstrating outside as extremists in order to diminish their concerns.

Pierre stated that parents are opposed to bill 13 because it will likely trigger years of costly lawsuits against the province which will ultimately be paid by the taxpayers. In a time of global financial crisis, parents need to pay their bills, and they are not going to tolerate wasting their hard-earned cash when it could be paying for the gas to take their kids to hockey practice. Parents think bill 14 offers new tools to address bullying such as a third-party body to oversee situations in which parents find they are not making headway with their school principals. They do not support bill 13 because "it is a grave violation of our conscience rights, we think it is just a feel-good measure, and we think it will cause social upheaval and add to our own financial distress."

The rally was sponsored by Concerned Catholic Parents of Ontario. Other speakers included TDSB Trustee Allan Tam and several individuals from the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu faiths. Several PC MPPs stopped by to listen, including PC MPP John O'Toole, who challenged the application of the term homophobic to demonstrators by MPP Liz Sandals later that afternoon during the Parliamentary debates.

A small group of 20 protestors stood nearby shouting that Catholic parents favor bullying.
MPPs from all parties praised bill 14, speaking of the need to move forward on progress toward an anti-bullying bill. Just before Parliament ended for the day Witmer's bill was referred to the social policy committee. One wonders how quickly Bill 13 will join it there.
You have to admit that the anti-Christian and anti-Family cultural Marxists, nihilists and sex worshipers employ clever rhetoric. They want a law to force Catholic schools to teach that historic Christian teaching about sexuality is wrong. So they claim that Biblical teaching leads to bullying homosexuals and then they bully politicians into persecuting Christians and taking away parental rights to decides what ethics their children will be taught. Brilliant! But then again, the Devil has always been clever.

Monday, March 26, 2012

This is What They Mean by "Choice"

Take a moment to read this heart-breaking story of one woman's experience of "free choice" in the pro-abortion society called Quebec. It is enough to make any person with a heart be too ashamed to call him or herself "pro-choice."

Anna (not her real name) came to see me to discuss the research she was doing on abortion. We talked about the articles she'd read, when I asked her, "How did you become interested in this topic?" She hesitated, then said, "I've just had an abortion, and I'm terribly upset and I'd like to tell you about it." Her story is tragic.

Anna explained, "Everyone in Quebec thinks that abortion is normal; nothing to fuss or be upset about; the obvious and easy solution to an unplanned pregnancy." But, when she unexpectedly found herself pregnant, she didn't feel that way and sought support to continue the pregnancy. Everyone told her, however, to "get on with it" - have an abortion.

Anna, first, asked her mother whether she would help her, if she had the baby. Her mother flatly refused, saying, "I do not want to waste my life babysitting." Her male partner said he "wasn't interested in a kid" and their relationship has since broken up. She tried to get an appointment with her gynecologist to discuss her options, but the first available one was two months away. She then contacted an abortion clinic, which gave her an appointment in two weeks, at which time Anna was nine weeks pregnant. She said, "I went to them to get information on abortion, to know more about my options, the consequences of an abortion. I was open to getting an abortion, because that was what everyone around me recommended I do. I saw abortion as an option, but was really not sure. I was hoping for some answers."

Anna met, first, with a nurse for a "consent interview." She said, "The nurse told me that at this stage of the pregnancy the fetus is just a bunch of cells. I also asked her if the abortion would have any impact on my health, my future pregnancies, and so on. She said abortions had no impact at all, no consequences at all, that all that I had read (to the contrary) were myths. The nurse said, 'In two weeks, it will be as if all this never happened'."

Anna changed into a hospital gown and was taken into an examination room where a technician proceeded to do an ultrasound. Anna asked what the fetus looked like and could she see the ultrasound. She said, "The technician told me she was not allowed to show me the images and I was unable to see the screen," which showed the fetus. At nine weeks gestation, it would have had a beating heart. The technician then picked up the printout of the ultrasound, but dropped it on the floor. She scrambled to gather it up quickly, saying, "You don't want to see this." But that's exactly what Anna did want.

Anna says she was left "waiting alone in a little room in the blue gown," before a nurse took her to the operating room, "where they gave me the sedative injection. At that point I was just crying, I was just thinking of all the reasons people told me I had to get the abortion, and that I did not have any help anyways, so I was crying. The doctor asked me if I was here on my own will and I said, 'Yes', while crying. So they gave me a double dose of sedative to calm me down. At that point, I felt it was pointless to protest further and that I couldn't back out at that stage and would just have to go ahead." So, she closed her eyes and let the abortion proceed.

Go here to read the whole thing. It is part of an article in the Ottawa Citizen by McGill ethicist Margaret Sommerville on the complexities of informed consent and abortion.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Sign the Petition!

Help us defend parental rights and religious freedom against the flawed Bill 13. This proposed legislation by Dalton McGuinty's Ontario government will subvert parental rights and freedom of religion. It will cause schools to teach children controversial Sex Ed theories that violate the religious and moral convictions of many parents about human sexuality.

The state must not be allowed to take away our rights with Bill 13. Join us at Queen's Park. Let's tell Dalton McGuinty and all MPPs to vote NO to Bill 13. We support genuine efforts to reduce bullying, but Bill 13 is a veiled atttempt to push a sex ed agenda, under the guise of anti-bullying.

If you live in Ontario, please take a moment to sign the petition against Bill 13 that the McGuinty government is putting forward in the Ontario Legislature.

Vote "No" to Bill 13 Petition | GoPetition

Children should not be exposed to talk about sexual matters in elementary school. This itself is a form of bullying, if not child abuse. It is also a direct assault on the family and its freedom of religion. Parents have a right not to have the State teaching their children that the religion of their parents is wrong and hateful.

Why are we so tolerant of those who seek to impose their false beliefs on us in such a high-handed and disrespectful manner?

In Honour of Israeli Apartheid Week

All is explained here:

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Stanley Fish Abandons Reasoned Discourse and Equality in Favour of "Might Makes Right"

Stanley Fish is a barbarian and a liberal fascist. He has joined the ranks of those who do not deserve to be argued with; such people only understand force and must be dealt with accordingly or else civilization is a lost cause.

Why would I say such a thing about one of the leading literary critics of our day? Bear with me and I'll will explain all.

Here is an excerpt from his op ed in the New York Times in which he admits that the Left has a hypocritical double standard for Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher. Maher has a long rap sheet as hate-filled, foul-mouthed and anti-women, yet President Obama takes a million dollar donation from Bill Maher and goes after Limbaugh for doing once what Maher does regularly. Why? Simply because Limbaugh is Republican. And, amazingly, Fish admits all this. He writes:

What is a double standard? It’s a double standard when you condemn an opponent for doing or saying something you would approve or excuse if it were said or done by one of your buddies. The double standard that is in the news these days concerns Rush Limbaugh, who called Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown, a “slut” and “prostitute” because she told Congress that her university’s health plan should cover the cost of contraceptives.

Limbaugh has not had many defenders (Mitt Romney said weakly that he wouldn’t have used that language), but some on the conservative side of the aisle have cried “double standard” because Ed Schultz was only mildly criticized (and suspended for a week) for characterizing Laura Ingraham as a “right-wing slut,” and Bill Maher emerged relatively unscathed after he referred to Michele Bachmann as a “bimbo” and labeled Sarah Palin with words I can’t mention in this newspaper. If you are going to get on your high horse when Limbaugh says something inappropriate, shouldn’t you also mount the steed when commentators on your team say the same kind of thing? Isn’t what’s good for the goose good for the gander?

These questions come naturally to those who have been schooled in the political philosophy of enlightenment liberalism.
Now maybe you are one of those people who still call people like Obama, Shultz, Maher and Fish liberals. But Fish understands that he is not a liberal. The only liberals left in America are conservatives like Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and those who actually stand for equality. Fish is an authoritarian leftist just like Obama and Maher and he isn't even trying to hide it any more. (Never call Obama a Liberal; it is a compliment he has not earned.) Fish writes:

If we think about the Rush Limbaugh dust-up from the non-liberal — that is, non-formal — perspective, the similarity between what he did and what Schultz and Maher did disappears. Schultz and Maher are the good guys; they are on the side of truth and justice. Limbaugh is the bad guy; he is on the side of every nefarious force that threatens our democracy. Why should he get an even break?

There is no answer to that question once you step outside of the liberal calculus in which all persons, no matter what their moral status as you see it, are weighed in an equal balance. Rather than relaxing or soft-pedaling your convictions about what is right and wrong, stay with them, and treat people you see as morally different differently. Condemn Limbaugh and say that Schultz and Maher may have gone a bit too far but that they’re basically O.K. If you do that you will not be displaying a double standard; you will be affirming a single standard, and moreover it will be a moral one because you will be going with what you think is good rather than what you think is fair. “Fair” is a weak virtue; it is not even a virtue at all because it insists on a withdrawal from moral judgment.

I know the objections to what I have said here. It amounts to an apology for identity politics. It elevates tribal obligations over the universal obligations we owe to each other as citizens. It licenses differential and discriminatory treatment on the basis of contested points of view. It substitutes for the rule “don’t do it to them if you don’t want it done to you” the rule “be sure to do it to them first and more effectively.” It implies finally that might makes right. I can live with that. [my bolding]

Fish can live with abandoning liberalism as "fair rules for losers." He thinks the Nietzschean will-to-power is just swell; might makes right. Western civilization from Plato on has been predicated on the conviction that might does not make right, that justice is above us and not merely a matter of human will. Fish is not just throwing out Christianity and he is not just trashing the Enlightenment and the liberalism that emerged from it. It goes even deeper than that. He is giving up on the rule of law: that which separated the Roman Empire from the barbarian tribes. He looks at barbarianism and says: "I can live with that."

Jonah Goldberg wrote a book entitled "Liberal Fascism." This is what he was talking about. It is as ugly as any other sort of fascism and just as morally depraved. Fish might just as well have put on his jackboots and joined a march of Brownshirts down Pennsylvania Avenue. He has made it clear that he stands on the side of those who had to be killed in World War II in order for the freedom of the West to be preserved.

Well, Stanley old boy, maybe you can live with that as long as your tribe is in power. But those of us committed to civilization, the rule of law and liberal democracy understand that the future of civilized life itself depends on your lot being removed forcibly from power and prevented from getting your hands on it ever again. And when that happens remember that might has made right, from your point of view and make sure not to whine and cry about it.

This is what the culture wars have come to. Remember when they accuse us of wanting a theocracy, what they want instead is fascist dictatorship. We did not start this war any more than Britain and America started World War II. But if God is gracious, we will finish it.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

International Women's Day: Turning Aprons into Hammers and Sickles

Today is International Women's Day, a reasonably accurate summary of the history of which can be found on Wikipedia. In 1909, the Socialist Party of America sponsored the first national women's day and in August 1910 a women's conference immediately preceeded the opening of the Second International in Copenhagen. At this meeting a proposal was accepted for an International Women's Day to focus on equal rights for women. It was officially adopted by the Bolshevik Russia after the 1917 Revolution and it became a holiday in 1965.

From the very beginning, however, the definition of "equal rights" was based on socialist assumptions and therefore the concept of economic independence was enshrined at the heart of the notion of equality. This puts this concept of "equal rights for women" in direct opposition to the nuclear family, which is something Marx and Engels were clear about right from the beginning of Marxism. (See F. Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Penguin Classics, 2010.)

Second Wave Feminism, from the 1960s onward, has been dominated by cultural Marxism in the form of critical theory. The traditional family is a structure of oppression because the husband/father is the primary bread-winner. So it has to go - or at least be radically reformed - before women can be free. Upon this theoretical foundation rests such public policy positions as abortion on demand, leniency for infanticide, free and widely-available artificial contraception, sex education in public schools, the marriage penalty in tax laws, no fault divorce laws, recognition of cohabitation as equal to marriage, homosexual "marriage" and so on. All are ways of chipping away at the foundation of traditional marriage and family until the edifice crumbles.

International Women's Day is a counter holy day instituted by the heretical offshoot of Christianity called Marxism, which is establishing itself in the West as traditional Christianity is pushed out. It is part of a false liturgy which must be resisted by Christians. It celebrates the tyranny of the all-powerful socialist state and the denigration of the family as an obstacle to "equality."

Bottom line? Conservatives should celebrate Mother's Day, which celebrates the traditional family, instead of International Womens' Day.