new

‘Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man’ is a Jesuit maxim attributed to Saint Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus. He probably never said it, or if he did, he almost certainly said: ‘Give me the boy for the first seven years and I will show you the man’. The quote is also attributed to Aristotle, but in a sense the source doesn’t matter, for by its attribution to both one of the greatest spiritual minds and one of the greatest philosophical thinkers ever to have existed, it moves beyond cultural constructivism to transcendent truth: the workings of the mind were designed to be subject to time and space.

And into that time and space comes children’s education, by which process their moral, cultural and religious values are inculcated and their politics are moulded – from the history lesson which scorns the ethics of empire to the singing of ‘I vow to thee my country’ in the daily act of collective worship, schools are places where political perspectives become truths and religious exposure becomes morality. There is, of course, much debate concerning the proper aims of education and the right balance (should such a thing exist) between the prescriptive statutes of governments and the freedoms of parents and particular religious groups, but in a liberal democracy there must be the means to impart the knowledge of citizenship which is deemed necessary to sustain that liberal democracy, or the state ceases generation-by-generation to be either liberal or democratic.

Relationship and Sex Education (formerly Sex and Relationship Education) is one of those subjects which straddles the government-parent-religion tensions of responsibility and provision. For some, it is the task of parents to teach sexual morality and reify good relationship; for others, it is the joint responsibility of parents and religious communities, with a civic minimum imparting the essential facts of biology and social reality. For others still, mindful of parental delinquency and religious prejudice in this regard, it is fundamentally a function of the state to ensure that all children are taught the knowledge and life skills they will need to develop healthy relationships and stay safe while having sex.

The question and tension which then arises is related to age-appropriateness: at what point does the scientific naming of private body parts or discussion about where babies come from become consideration of emotional and physical changes; and then at what point those changes become discussions about different kinds of families or the differences between boys and girls; and then at what point those differences become discussions about engaging in sex, contraception or condoms, homosexuality and transgender people. And what about abortion? And then there is sexual experimentation, orgasms, group sexual experiences, oral sex, masturbation—

Would it surprise you to know that discussions about transgender are deemed appropriate for eight-year-olds?

One state primary school in Birmingham, where the children are predominantly Muslim, introduced RSE lessons to promote LGBT equality. The Guardian reported in January that the programme includes “the welcoming of people of any race, colour or religion and those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender”. There is, of course, nothing wrong with welcoming people, but what is the age-appropriate way of explaining lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to a four-year-old? What are books entitled ‘Mommy, Mama and Me‘ or ‘King & King‘ designed to inculcate about the morality of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages? Birmingham school LGBT Muslim protestOne parent Fatima Shah is quoted: “Children are being told it’s OK to be gay, yet 98% of children at this school are Muslim. It’s a Muslim community. [Mr Moffat (assistant headteacher)] said all parents are on board with it, but the reality is, no parents are on board with it.” She added: “We have nothing against Mr Moffat – we are as British as they come. We respect the British values— but the problem is, he is not respecting our ethos as a community. We don’t send our children to school to learn about LGBT. We send them to school to learn maths, science and English.”

Andrew Moffat, who is gay and was appointed MBE in 2017 for services to education, responded: “I’m just teaching children from an early age that there are different families out there and, let’s not forget, that in some schools there are children with two mums, so I see it that they’re not being taught anything. All they’re seeing is their family is being accepted. We want all children in Birmingham to know that their family is normal; that their family is accepted and welcomed in schools.”

Last week Mr Moffat gave in, and subjugated the ethos of his school to the religious ethos of the majority Muslim parents: all LGBT lessons have been stopped. He did this because hundreds of those parents decided to withdraw their children from the lessons, which is their legal right. But what if RSE were to become mandatory, as the Government intends? What option would parents then have if they felt their children were being taught matters of sex and sexuality which they deemed to be age-inappropriate? “We are not a bunch of homophobic mothers,” Fatima Shah said. “We just feel that some of these lessons are inappropriate. Some of the themes being discussed are very adult and complex and the children are getting confused. They need to be allowed to be children rather than having to constantly think about equalities and rights.”

The themes being discussed are complex for adults, too, because it matters of sexuality and gender it isn’t at all clear where nature end and nurture begins. And that is the essence of the grievance these Muslim parents have: they feel their children are not simply being education in the sociological fact of homosexuality and transgender, but inculcated – or ‘indoctrinated’, as one parent put it – into the moral virtue of such expressions of identity. Now, you may believe that homosexuality is as innate as heterosexuality, and transgender is simply another increment on the spectrum of human diversity, but for others the causal debate is more nuanced, not least because there is conflicting evidence from eminent scientists and psychologists on both sides of the divide. While some favour the ‘nature’ explanation based on biology or genetics, others incline to the ‘nurture’ theory, based on the psychological reaction to upbringing and environment, which obviously includes education.

The Bible’s understanding of biology (and, indeed, that of the Qur’an) is a world apart from modern studies, and theologians are as divided as scientists. Some insist that cultural factors contribute in psycho-sexual development, embracing Freudian psychological theory, for example, which asserts that homosexual orientation is a consequence of the failure to identify with the same-sex parent; that a physical or emotional distance between the child and the same-sex parent results in a failure to be able to identify with one’s own sex. This results in a same-sex deficit, which the homosexual is unconsciously trying to repair by creating emotional and sexual relationships with people of the same sex. It is not so much a moral degeneracy but an emotional immaturity, and one therefore capable of being healed through therapy.

This is the view of the great majority of Muslims, and also of a great many Christians and Jews. The cause of homosexual orientation being somehow a combination of both nature and nurture – a psychogenetic fusion – would therefore be susceptible to educational inculcation. If the ethos of a school is toward ‘tolerance’ of homosexuality and transgender as ‘natural’, and that ethos is reified by teachers who impart notions of equal validity and moral parity, then what the Bible or Qur’an happen to say becomes irrelevant: British values trump God’s created order. If a child feels a bit gender-neutral or trans one day, why not explore androgyny further? Why not try living as the opposite sex for a while? It might be fun. It certainly makes you a bit more interesting and gets you noticed.

There is no easy solution to this: the government-parent-religion tensions will persist in state education until one party asserts its dominance – which appears to be imminent – at which point the other parties will respond or react. While reason demands the serious critical consideration of scientific studies, and certainly those which are concerned with the possibility that same-sex preference and transgender may be genetically programmed, not all innate tendencies in children are either good or desirable. But that is too nuanced a debate in this febrile atmosphere. It is to be noted that in the hundreds of parents who have withdrawn their children from LGBT lessons in this school, sporting their banners declaring ‘Education not Indoctrination’, ‘My Child My Right’ and ‘Say No to sexualisation of children’, they have not been condemned as homophobes or bigots by LGBT lobby groups. If these had been Christian parents, however, no doubt Amanda Spielman would have issued an instant press release, and Peter Tatchell would have been there in a flash.

Liberal law center demonizes Christian foes of LGBTQ agenda as ‘hate groups’

August 18, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — In the vast array of leftist lies, one of the most dangerous is that groups and people defending historic Judeo-Christian sexual morality are somehow guilty of "hate." The main perpetrator of that “big lie” these days is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has turned smearing and demonizing social conservatives fighting the homosexual-transgender agenda into a very profitable business.

The SPLC is attempting to pull off one of the nastiest and most audacious “bait-and-switch” propaganda coups in history — equating the Christian-conservative led effort to defend biblical morality against the aggressive LGBTQ lobby with vile racists, Neo-Nazis and anti-Semitic extremist groups.

The Birmingham, Alabama-based SPLC’s “hate” campaign is helped along by lazy, biased journalists and online “social justice warriors” who delight in using its past anti-racism credentials to advance the Left's immoral and deviant sex-gender agenda.

CNN lends legitimacy to SPLC

Yesterday, CNN shamefully assisted the SPLC’s bogus “hate” narrative by running a story featuring its “hate map” under the initial headline, “Here are all the active hate groups where you live.” It was accompanied by a graphic of the SPLC’s “hate map” of alleged “hate groups,” which includes, under Illinois, my organization, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). We have been slandered as an SPLC “hate group” for the last several years.

On the SPLC ‘s Illinois map, AFTAH and other Christian pro-family groups are listed alongside a KKK group, a "white nationalist" outfit, and some affiliates of the Aryan Nations Sadistic Souls MC, another Nazi group. This is the SPLC’s vicious handiwork, treated as “fact” by the media.

After protests by those miscast as “haters,” CNN changed its headline to "The Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups.”

Similar stories featuring the SPLC’s bogus “hate map” have popped up across the country, including one in the The Boston Globe headlined, “Where hate calls ‘home’ in Massachusetts.”

The following pro-family groups join Americans For Truth in having the distinct “honor” of being lied about by the cunningly deceptive, sleazy and, yes, downright evil SPLC:

Abiding Truth Ministries (Scott Lively)

Alliance Defending Freedom (the SPLC recently attacked Attorney General Jeff Sessions for addressing this group)

American College of Pediatricians (Dr. Michelle Cretella)

American Family Association (Tim Wildmon)

American Vision

Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM; Austin Ruse)

Citizens for Community Values

Conservative Republicans of Texas (Dr. Steve Hotze)

Family Research Council (Tony Perkins)

Family Research Institute (Dr. Paul Cameron)

Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (H.O.M.E.)

Illinois Family Institute

Liberty Counsel (Mat Staver)

Mass Resistance (and its chapters in various states; Brian Camenker)

Mission: America (Linda Harvey)

Pacific Justice Institute (Brad Dacus)

Pass the Salt Ministries (Coach Dave Daubenmire)

Pray in Jesus Name Project (“Chaps” Klingenschmitt)

Public Advocate of the United States (Eugene Delgaudio)

Ruth Institute (Jennifer Roback Morse)

Save California (Randy Thomasson)

Traditional Values Coalition (Andrea Sheldon)

World Congress of Families/Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society (Allan Carlson)
As you can see, this is quite a large group, representing many millions of Americans and including some of the most accomplished and effective pro-family leaders in the United States. Who knew that these great Americans were the moral equivalents of neo-Nazi Stormtroopers and the Ku Klux Klan?

Hating truth

They are not, of course. Not even close. Could it be that leftists who deliberately conflate mere opposition to the LGBTQ agenda — a revolutionary sin movement that has destroyed the sanctity of marriage in the law and is leading the assault on citizens’ right to live according to the dictates of their faith with hatred— are the ones truly guilty of hate-mongering?

Common sense and logic tell us that those who resist a deviant-sex movement that has produced such profound evils as “pregnant men”; perversion-positive “Christianity”; and teaching little children that they can “become” the opposite sex though medical manipulations of their young bodies, are motivated not by malice or bigotry but rather a heartfelt desire to ward off the social destruction that comes from celebrating unnatural behaviors.

There is a popular saying in Christian, pro-family circles today: “Those who hate the truth call truth hate.”

I believe that at some level that is true, because when “journalists” cavalierly repeat politically calculated tripe like the SPLC’s “hate” smear as if it is authoritative and meaningful, they demonstrate contempt for sincere people of faith simply trying to follow God.

Besides, one of the “old school” rules of “fair” journalism is that in covering a cultural debate, you do not rely on one group’s biased characterization of its opponents, to preserve the ideal of a disinterested, neutral news story. Of course, those days are long gone as most media have shorn any pretense of objectivity and are increasingly fanatical cheerleaders for Big Gay and Big Trans. (What’s next, Big Poly?)

Go with the Big Lie

And so we behold a Fourth Estate very much interested and dutiful in advancing the “narrative” of one side of the “culture war” over homosexuality and “transgenderism,” using the noble-sounding cover of “civil rights.” Most media don’t even bother anymore to get viewpoints of the “other side” on this issue, or if they do, it’s often just a token quote to help reporters feel like they’re being fair.

This makes the SPLC’s goal of advancing its bold, pro-LGBT “hate” lie much easier than it should be.

It turns out that the “Big Lie” tactic attributed to Hitler was something he accused “the Jews” of doing in his 1925 autobiography, Mein Kampf, years before he led a demonization- and then genocidal government campaign against them. But history records that the mustached Nazi dictator and his henchmen (most notably Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels) became masters of the tactic, ultimately using it as part of their horrifyingly evil program against Jews, Poles, and other “undesirables.”

Hitler wrote: “For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

Today’s leftist liars understand this harsh reality and know that their “end justifies the means” approach toward delegitimizing pro-family conservatives as “hateful” bigots yields big political and cultural dividends — and scares the media away from featuring conservatives in their stories.

So rather than oppose pro-family groups civilly on public-policy issues concerning homosexuality and gender confusion (transgenderism), the Left resorts to a sophisticated version of name-calling. It began in the post-Stonewall ‘70s, as radical “gay” activists held up signs equating prominent religious opponents of organized homosexuality, like Anita Bryant, with Hitler.

From there it went to tarring their foes as “homophobes,” a term invented by pro-“gay” psychologist George Weinberg, who neatly flipped the pathology from homosexual behavior itself to opposing homosexuality.

Ultimately, the SPLC “codified” that Big Lie, as it were, with its “hate-labeling” strategy that preposterously mixes Christian, pro-family groups opposed to the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) Lobby with vile neo-Nazis and white race-warriors.

The SPLC claims it is not demonizing moral and religious opposition to homosexuality but only the methods that the above conservative groups use to oppose the LGBTQ movement, but this is an absurd technicality. In another column, I will expose the arbitrariness of the SPLC’s “criteria” for determining which groups belong on its “anti-LGBT” “hate map.”

‘I’m not a hater?’

And yet, despicable as the SPLC’s hate-smear campaign is, it is highly effective. Making the spurious charge against morality-defenders as “haters” is far easier to do in our post-Christian, morally dumbed-down culture than defending oneself against the loaded accusation.

Indeed, forcing conservatives and Christians to plead defensively, “I’m not — ” is part of the SPLC’s propaganda strategy. We have become a society of simplistic slogans, like “Love is love” and “marriage equality.” In such a culture, accusing good-hearted Christians and conservatives of “hating gays” merely because they oppose (very unhealthy) homosexual behavior, “gay marriage” and creating sin-based “rights” is par for the course.

Denying that you are a “hater” when the most powerful forces in society — media, corporations, academia — are matter-of-factly echoing the SPLC smear — is sort of like denying that you beat your wife. You would never beat your wife — you are called to love her sacrificially as Christ loved the Church — but suddenly you are accused of having abused her, by an organization lionized by the press. A cunning, well-funded organization masquerading as a “civil rights” champion whose allegations are repeated far and wide with an air of moral authority and respectability.

Your pleas about the falseness of the outrageous smear are shared by friends (some similarly accused of beating their wives) but together you are drowned out by a chorus of enemies who have won the sympathy of the corrupt media.

Your only hope for justice is that a large and growing army of people — aided by some counter-cultural media leaders — comes to your aid and exposes the hateful slanders and the wicked organization behind them, so that nobody will ever believe its lies again.

This is how we must counter the SPLC’s calculated, cynical “Big Lie” against people of faith who humbly set out to speak truth, in the love of Christ, about one of the most difficult issues of our age.

Next: The shoddy research, irrationality and arbitrariness of the SPLC’s LGBT “hate group” lie.