By What Authority (2)? Is the "Safe Schools" program so bad it becomes the main election issue?
Filed on 21 February 2017 in Food For Thought category. Print This Page
"…when it comes to the ballot box we must not, cannot, waiver in our responsibility to cast a vote against this evil. Otherwise we too are complicit. We too may have to accept our part in being cast into the sea." http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/by-what-authority/
Jesus was so clear in his indictment of those who "lead little ones into sin". He said it would be better for them to be cast into the sea with a millstone around their neck.
On March 11 this year West Australians have a clear moral choice. Will you support Labor and the Greens who are both committed to continue to roll out the "Safe Schools" program ensuring "state" indoctrination of our children being exposed to choosing what gender they are, to experiment to find out their sexual orientation and in their browsing through the related internet sites how to hide this browsing history from their parents? Even the main creator of the program is on record as saying this "is not about bullying (but) about gender and sexual diversity".
And political leaders who, in their wilful ignorance, support these programs and the motivations of their designers for gender and sexual diversity, are deserving of our condemnation and not our vote.
The implications of forced state indoctrination of our children and grandchildren should scare us.
Lachlan Dunjey. 20 Feb, 2017.
You need more detail? Surely not – but for a comprehensive discussion read Dr David van Gend's book Stealing from a Child chapter 5 page 89 LGBTQ Sex-Education at your "Safe School". And see
So what is so bad about something that sounds as innocuous as a Safe Schools Program? (May 2016)
http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/2016-choices-that-will-shape-australia-for-generations-to-come/
Firstly, there are existing school programs that deal with bullying without selecting one particular area of concern and we are informed that these programs are effective if followed through.
Secondly, the program encourages premature sexualisation of children. We can be thankful that it will now only be implemented in high schools and no longer in primary schools. (But already such "education" is to be separately introduced to pre-schoolers. The Start Early Initiative for kindergartens introducing gender, sexuality, cross-dressing and tours of the opposite sex toilets promoted by Early Childhood Australia was introduced last month and is set to be rolled out across the country. It is said that it is to prevent domestic violence by countering "rigid views on gender" http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/newsletter/162/start-early.html https://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/03/06/when-the-wicked-target-our-children/ )
Thirdly, the program introduces – and encourages experimentation in – matters of sexuality and sexual experience that would horrify most people: two virginities; breast binding; penis tucking; and links to sites that promote group sex, sex toys and sadomasochism. Also http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/a-%E2%80%9Cneeds-to-know%E2%80%9D-safe-schools/. At a time when we are looking at ways of combating the scourge of pornography some of these sites are overtly pornographic.
Indeed, normally accepted sexual intercourse as between a male and a female is derided as "heteronormativity" and is not to be tolerated.
Lesson two of the program involves sex role playing: students imagine they are 16 and going out with somebody, one half of the class with someone of the same sex and the other half with the opposite sex. Class discussions are recommended to combat the malaise of "heteronormativity". Students are urged to avoid reinforcing this mindset with questions such as whether a new baby is a boy or a girl. Did you get that? The ideology is that "reducing heteronormativity in schools can have good outcomes for everyone".
This sexualisation and overt "grooming" for early sex has been considered by some as child abuse.
Indeed, in their paper of Mar 29, 2016 Gender ideology harms children, published by the American College of Paediatricians, Michelle A. Cretella, Quentin Van Meter and Paul McHugh write that "conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse." http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
Is the program "just"? Is it good or evil? And what does that imply for the politicians and educators that promote these things?
Is it "just" to encourage experimentation in losing virginity and that there are ways of losing it other than penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse – and to know your own sexual identity you should find out? Is it "just" to suggest that sadomasochistic sexual expression is OK and that it is OK to hurt or be hurt?
PS some very, very good news:
Gender theory banned in NSW classrooms
NSW students will no longer be taught that gender is a 'social construct'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/gender-theory-banned-in-nsw-classrooms/news-story/eeb40f3264394798ebe67260fa2f5782
by Rebecca Urban Journalist Melbourne 12:00AM February 9, 2017
NSW public school teachers have been banned from teaching gender theory in the classroom after an independent review into the state's sex and health education resources.
Students will no longer be taught that gender is a "social construct", or that sexuality is "non-binary", occurring on a ­continuum and "constantly changing".