London Daily Mail Laura Clark March 15, 2007
Schools are teaching children as young as four about same-sex relationships to comply with new gay rights laws, it emerged yesterday.
They are introducing youngsters to homosexuality using a series of story books in preparation for controversial regulations coming into force next month.
Fourteen primary schools are already taking part in a £600,000 Government-funded study aimed at familiarising children with gay and lesbian relationships.
The research team behind the project intends to post the findings on national websites to help all schools use the books in their literacy lessons.
It also revealed it is leading workshops for local councils across the country which are asking how to implement new laws banning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
The academics working on the study say showing children that homosexuality is part of everyday life helps reduce homophobic bullying in the playground.
They claim schools need to ensure they are serving the needs of gay pupils and parents to comply with the Equality Act.
However the scheme sparked alarm among Christian groups who fear the legislation could leave schools open to lawsuits if they refuse to use books with gay characters.
. . . more
Wow.
Why do they insist on doing the devil’s work?
Dean, what do you think the movement to normalize homosexuality is all about?
Forget the 4-year-old thing for a moment. Out of curiosity, how should the existence of gay couples in society be explained in any grade/junior/high school classroom setting? Should it always be described in no other setting than a psychology class on aberrant behavior, for example?
Not to put behavior on par with beliefs, but let’s extend this to the existence of other faiths in society. Many Hindu beliefs seem downright goofy to me. They worship this wild-looking goddess with enough arms to slap an entire congregation of its followers. (However, I happen to work with a good number of them, and they seem like pretty decent folk.) Should stories about Hindus be delegated to a philosophy class where the Hindu religion is put in a section with other “arcane, demonic and heretical ancient religions”?
In other words, is it the age we’re offended by, the context and language with which it’s presented or that it’s presented at all?
Should it always be described in no other setting than a psychology class on aberrant behavior, for example
No, it should also be taught as ungodly behavior in Church.
Should stories about Hindus be delegated to a philosophy class where the Hindu religion is put in a section with other “arcane, demonic and heretical ancient religions”?
No, it should be described as a pagan religion. It’s merits, such as they are, are due to the “law written on the heart” (see St. Paul). See any basic catechism…
In other words, is it the age we’re offended by, the context and language with which it’s presented or that it’s presented at all?
You missed it entirely. It’s the moral content
4-year olds? This amounts to nothing more than P.C. Brainwashing.
JamesK: Out of curiosity, how should the existence of gay couples in society be explained in any grade/junior/high school classroom setting?
Just as any other alternative lifestyle. Sure, people do it – but, that does not make it the “norm” nor, is it morally acceptable.
I question why it need be presented at all in school, except to undermine a parent’s teaching of their own children.
bob, in addition to undermining parents teaching authority, the idea is to undermine the whole idea of morality at all. The gross materialism of the 60’s has triumphed
bob,
JamesK is a modern relativist (whether he knows it or not – If I remember correctly he identifies himself as a member of the ‘religious left’)) so he is approaching it the only way he knows – amorally…
Christopher: Just because someone doesn’t share you skewed, pinched and narrow view of morality doesn’t make a person “amoral”.
If you read the Gospels (try it sometime) you will find that Christ viewed selfishness and indifference to the suffering of our fellow human beings to be a much more serious offense in God’s eyes than illicit sexual behavior. The adulterous woman saved by Christ from stoning was rebuked with a mild “Go and sin no more.” But in Matthew 25 Christ tells us that those who ignore the suffering of the least of their brothers will be pitched into hellfire.
Senator Brownback, defending General Peter Pace, had it exactly right when recently he said that homosexuals are not immoral, but homosexual actions can be. Certainly there are behaviors associated with homosexuality that Christianity must condemn, just as their are behaviors associated with heterosexuality that it condemns. However as Christians we have a higher obligation to treat our fellow human beings, whatever their sexual orientation, with love, respect and dignity. We do the devils work when we forget this and focus instead on the aspects of or moral teaching that can be used as an excuse to be hateful, intolerant and mean-spirited.
Dean you say:
I agree with you and I’d love to see you apply the same to George Bush.
But isn’t this great, Christopher thinks Dean is “channeling Satan” while Dean thinks Christpher is “doing the devil’s work” With brotherhood like this Satan doesn’t even have to get involved. Guy’s just remember Jesus’ words: “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world”
Christianity is not about morality, it is about repentance.
Dean’s righteous indignation is hollow. Did I say hate the sin AND the sinner? No. Did I say let’s persecute the homosexualists? No. What I have said is let’s not pretend what the homosexualists (i.e. homosexual activists and their pro-homosexualist political bedfellows) want is morally neutral. It is not, it is a positive harm. James K and his fellow relativists simply do not have the tools to see or fight this harm.
Dean on the other hand claims to Orthodox, so we have to grant that he mayhave the tools. He attacks a straw man pretty viciously, so perhaps he (and you also Michael) could better focus your energy and talents, as you are preaching to the choir with me. This site is about ideas and there political/cultural consequences, and James K relativism is certainly something to be pointed out. I am well aware of my Christian duty – are you guys? I ask because you seem to be bearing false witness…
Michael,
Let’s be honest – Dean’s note #9 is exhibit A of a favorite tactic of the hard left – claim someone who thinks differently is a “bigot” as soon as you can. I am surprised that you buy into it so quickly. Or is it your just using it as a springboard for one of your pet peeves – pointing out the Devil’s work is somehow not showing enough interest in one’s own spiritual peril (i.e. is not about repentance)? Why do you engage anything at all on this blog, as it is always going to be about ideas, culture, politics, and how Orthodoxy relates to those things.? As such, it is not really about one’s own spiritual warfare or repentance (not directly). It’s a bit of a truism, is it not, “Be of good cheer”, at least in this context? What does that mean in culture, and in relation to the homosexualist agenda? Your not suggesting that we lay down in front of the Dean’s of this world as they subvert the Truth (in this case, the subversion of what is left of our culture)?
You know, the more I think about it, Michael has brought up a good point. Consider what we have been praying lately (Orthodox Christians that is):
O Lord and Master of my life,
Grant not unto me a spirit of idleness,
of discouragement,
of lust for power,
and of vain speaking.
But bestow upon me, Thy servant,
the spirit of chastity,
of meekness,
of patience,
and of love.
Yea, O Lord and King,
grant that I may perceive
my own transgressions,
and judge not my brother,
for blessed art Thou
unto ages of ages.
Amen.
Now, what has that have to do with gay fairytales? Michael, correct me if I am wrong, but you (from note 7) believe it has to do with destroying morality and forwarding materialism? Not sure of the link here to “brotherhood”. Please explain…;)
I’m sorry for inferring he’s doing the devil’s work – that was hyperbolic. I apologize.
My frustration stems from the fact that on the list of moral problems concerning the world today, I consider gay fairy tales to be pretty low on the scale of moral priorities, well below poverty, hunger, war, and disease, for example. I don’t understand why this commands so much of our attention and more urgent problems get far less.
Christopher, there are appropriate forums for voicing one’s opinion on moral and ethical issues. What I’m suggesting is that, at times, remaining silent on certain issues is the lesser of two evils. Children can be positively fiendish towards one another, as I’m sure you well know. They need little encouragement for heaping abuse on a fellow classmate by having a teacher tell them that a student’s parents are “pagans” (as you labeled Hindus) or that a child’s mother is an “adulterer” because she is unwed or that because a child is being raised by two men (or two women) that they are living in a sinful, dysfunctional household.
Picture yourself moving to somewhere in the southeast US where there are many Southern Baptists and Calvinists. Would you want your children being told that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers are unsaved, un-Scriptural heretics?
I don’t understand why this commands so much of our attention and more urgent problems get far less.
Because your list is from the left, modern, progressive view of man as a material being. You seem to not understand the importance of the soul of man, breathed into him by God. Let’s look at your list:
1) “poverty” – a material condition
2) “hunger” – a material condition (no nuance here, you certainly did NOT mean “man does not live by bread alone”)
3) “war” – by which you mean the material conditions, the conflict, depravity, and bodily need that arise from war. You certainly did not mean the spiritual and fallen condition of man that leads to war.
4) “disease” – a bodily, material condition. You would not be concerned if it did not cause pain and suffering, by which you mean bodily pain and suffering – not spiritual
You have no idea, literally no idea, of the real “principalities and powers” that surround you and all of us and threaten us in ways you do not understand. You have no real understanding of the real and immanent danger represented by ‘gay fairy tales’. You can not read the signs, you betray the lack of understanding that is almost child like, except you hold on to it stubbornly like, well, and ideological leftist who has no real contact with Christianity. You do NOT know the answer to “what is man”, and so can not see the importance of ‘gay fairy tales’. This is why your politics is so wrong, Christianly speaking.
This is why I am so bold as to question not only your Orthodoxy but even your Christianity. Michael may hold to a sort of pious patience, but I think it (Michael’s tact) to cross over into a false piety that resembles the “He-who-must-not-be-named” kind. It’s one thing to be a non-believer and post anti-Christian musings at a site called “OrthodoxyToday” – your merely a troll then. However, you put yourself forward as an Orthodox Christian who holds to very anti-Christian philosophies…
Jamesk,
Nice sentiments, even true in some cases. However, not the correct action to hard left wing propaganda such as these gay fairy tales. The correct “forum” for such instruction is nowhere. The correct “forum” for “world religions” may be school, it may not be, but that is not the point here – gay fairy tales are.
Yes, a child being raised by two homosexualists ARE in a dysfunctional, moral bankrupt household. Now, you being a relativist are going to respond with something like:
but many hetero families are morally bankrupt and what right does the government school have to say what is right and wrong and won’t other children be mean to them and blah blah blah….
It does get tiring. Why don’t you go troll at http://www.EpiscopalianToday.org where that sort of modernist dribble gets traction? After all, I DO live in the Southeast where Baptists and Calvinist DO believe such things. However, the ‘persecution’ is much heavier from the modernists such as yourself 😉 I can’t remember a Calvinist posting here. Perhaps they spend their time at http://www.CalvinistsToday.org….😉
Jamesk,
Check out this article right here at http://www.OrthodoxyToday.org:
https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/LockwoodLinsley.php
What sort of response would such a person have to ‘gay fairy tales’? What sort of response should a person have? Before you answer, let me warn you – it’s not relativism…;)
Christopher writes:
I always thought that the Orthodox point of view is that the material and the spiritual are ontologically inseparable — not that one is more important than the other or even that they are equally important, but that they are literally inseparable, and that there is a complete unity between body and soul. In that sense suffering is a mystery, and bodily suffering is never merely bodily suffering, but spiritual as well, reaching even to Christ: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
Why then do we see in the Gospels so many instances of Jesus Christ ministering to the “material” needs of those He encounters? We see Our Savior healing the sick. We see Him Feeding the Poor. Christ’s ideal neigbor, the Good Samaritan encounters a beaten man on the side of the road, an tends his wounds with oil, gives him clothing and pays for the man to receive food and shelter at a local inn. In another startling example of Christ’s attention to human material needs, Christ does not only raise Jairus’s daugher from the dead, (Mark 5:21-43) but observing that she has been through quite an ordeal, implores the girl’s parents to “give her something to eat”.
Christopher has taken psychologist Abraham Maslow’s framework of a heirarchy of needs, and turned it on its head. Like Christopher, Maslow believed that man’s spiritual needs were the most important, but unlike Christopher Maslow belived that spiritual needs could not be fulfilled until “lower” needs, like food, shelter, and physical security, were satisfied first. Christopher suggests that the lower needs are irrelavent, as if hunger was merely a “fasting opportunity”, illness and disease a retribution for our collective sinfulness, and poverty a character-building experience.
We see Christ always mindful of the need to attend to the physical needs of his followers before advancing to their spiritual needs, for example, feeding the multitude first, before preaching to them and answering their questions. More importantly, Christ also may nave been telling us that problems like poverty, hunger, disease and war are sources of evil in the world and act as impediments to spread of his message of love, hope and salvation and the creation of God’s Kingdom on earth.
Note 20:
Again the straw man. Earlier you alleged I was a bigot. Now you allege I care nothing for the body. Your attempt to bring everything down to a either/or is the problem. Question: What is the relationship between gay fairy tales and the WHOLE of Christ’s ministry? Notice this:
Why then do we see in the Gospels so many instances of Jesus Christ ministering to the “material” needs of those He encounters?
Why do you OPPOSE gay fairy tales with the Good Samaritan?
Answer: Because you do not have a Christian frame of mind…
Christopher: I agree with you that its probably not wise to make gay fairy tales part of an elemetary school curriculum, as it may tacitly condone a wider range of behaviors by the gay population that are unhealthy and morally objectionable. The objective of promoting tolerance and acceptance of people of diverse backgrounds can be achieved through a more generalized instructional program that also encompasses race, ethnicity, and social class and need not delve into the details of the gay lifestyle.
My quarrel with you is over the heirarchy of moral priorities, where we are pronounce gay fairy tales to be the harbinger of total moral collapse, but we are indifferent to the fact that thousands of people in the world drop dead of hunger and preventable diseases every day. This apparent mismatch of priorities can lead people to look for other motives. If I have misinterpreted your comments, I apologize, but ask you to provide further elaboration so I my more clearly understand your meaning.
My quarrel with you is over the hierarchy of moral priorities, where we are pronounce gay fairy tales to be the harbinger of total moral collapse, but we are indifferent to the fact that thousands of people in the world drop dead of hunger and preventable diseases every day.
Your quarrel should be with your own philosophy, not me. Again, you allege a falsehood – that I (or “we”) are “indifferent”. This either/or is part of your hard left anti-Christian philosophy. A hard left materialistic philosophy of course is the source of a mistaken “hierarchy of value” where the danger of ‘gay fairy tales’ and the like is missed. It is also the source of your misunderstanding. A balanced hierarchy of value, Christianly speaking, understands how to be both the Good Samaritan and the Prophet (warning Israel of ‘gay fairy tales’). A balanced Christian understanding would never lead to a dismissal of gay fairy tales, and rhetorical allegation (which is false of course) of “indifference” to disease, suffering, etc…
Note 15. James writes:
No, and I don’t want them taught about homosexuality either. Put another way, your soft relativism (where moral decisions are based on whether or not someone might be offended), will end up defending nothing at all.
Note 22. Dean writes:
Maybe if the gay lobby could divert some of their attention to the starving millions instead of the indoctrination of four year olds, the world would be a better place.
As for gay fairy tales as “the harbinger of total moral collapse”, moral collapse is incremental, not catastrophic until its final stages.
Dean, wake up. The goal is the moral legitimization of homosexuality. This won’t stop (unless someone stops it) until you have a homosexual safe sex curriculum alongside the heterosexual one.
In my years as a fundamentalist I came to understand that certain religious discussions are not really about the topic that they seem to be about. Instead, they are really about manipulating people into not discussing certain things or asking certain questions. Such “discussions” are really designed to shut down discussion — to ensure that difficult questions are not asked, or if asked, are not answered.
The discussion in this thread is not really about homosexuality but about JamesK being punished for asking a question.
JamesK writes: “Out of curiosity, how should the existence of gay couples in society be explained in any grade/junior/high school classroom setting?”
Christopher gives an answer, but not really an answer to JamesK’s question: “No, it should also be taught as ungodly behavior in Church.” But that wasn’t the question. The question was how the issue would be addressed in the classroom.
Now comes the smackdown. JamesK has asked the wrong question, and Christopher will make him pay for it:
Christopher: “JamesK is a modern relativist (whether he knows it or not – If I remember correctly he identifies himself as a member of the ‘religious left’)) so he is approaching it the only way he knows – amorally…”
Here the discussion is no longer about homosexuality. It’s really not even about JamesK. It’s Christopher punishing JamesK for asking the question. Also, Christopher’s response will now lead the discussion away from the original question, which is what it’s supposed to do.
Dean responds to Christopher, trying to defend JamesK, but also unfortunately playing into Christopher’s strategy of leading the discussion away from the original question.
Dean: “Just because someone doesn’t share you skewed, pinched and narrow view of morality doesn’t make a person ‘amoral.”
But with religious fundamentalists — and I think Christopher is a kind of Orthodox fundamentalist — anyone who comes to the defense of someone the fundamentalist is attacking, must himself be attacked.
Christopher: “Dean’s righteous indignation is hollow. . . .James K and his fellow relativists . . .Dean on the other hand claims to Orthodox . . .Dean’s note #9 is exhibit A of a favorite tactic of the hard left . . . ”
Michael has failed to condemn either Dean or JamesK. So Christopher has to try to bring him in line.
Christopher: “[Michael], I am surprised that you buy into it so quickly. Or is it your just using it as a springboard for one of your pet peeves . . .Your not suggesting that we lay down in front of the Dean’s of this world as they subvert the Truth (in this case, the subversion of what is left of our culture)?”
At this point “Dean” is no longer an actual person, but a type of person who subverts the truth.
JamesK mistakenly thinks that there is a real discussion happening with Christopher, so he tries to raise another issue.
JamesK: “Christopher, there are appropriate forums for voicing one’s opinion on moral and ethical issues. What I’m suggesting is that, at times, remaining silent on certain issues is the lesser of two evils.”
So Christopher has to punish him for raising that issue.
Christopher: “Why don’t you go troll at http://www.EpiscopalianToday.org where that sort of modernist dribble gets traction?”
To Christopher’s credit, he makes some actual discussion points, but they tend to be overshadowed by the smackdowns and other personal attacks, frequently peppered with “materialism,” “hard left,” “anti-Christian,” “relativist,” and so on. And in the middle of all that, 23 posts later, JamesK’s original question is never answered. For Christopher, it’s “mission accomplished.”
Note 25: It does seem that many believe that if certain things aren’t spoken about, they won’t happen. I’m not sure how facts alone came to be seen as a threat to social order. Now, I’m fully aware that there age appropriate facts and that the younger one is, the less detail is demanded or required, whatever the topic. Certainly, one doesn’t want brutal depictions of war to be presented to six or seven-year-olds, but I think they should have at least some vague concept of what it is. Likewise, I do not think it appropriate to go into graphic depictions of a sexual nature to very young students, but I don’t think it necessary to make up some fable about a stork or a cabbage patch, either.
What also seems to be a recurring belief here is that it is impossible to divulge facts without a moral context. That is, merely stating a fact and withholding condemnation or support implies some form of endorsement. If that is the case, I don’t see that we can embark on an attempt to educate our youngsters in a manner where we aren’t simply telling them what to think about every subject under the sun. This is not education. It’s regurgitation.
I recently attended a Christianity and Culture conference where one of the speakers believed that The Grapes of Wrath, though well-written and very poetic, was essentially a Marxist manifesto. He did not suggest it not be read, however, just that it be read with some sense of discernment as to what concepts were being advanced.
As I’ve mentioned, I don’t believe in censorship. Christian views should not be driven from the schools or anywhere else. It just seems that many Christians are bothered that other views are now entering the arena at all.
I’m not sure how facts alone came to be seen as a threat to social order.
because modernism and relativism subverts nature (and natures connection with God) and it’s organic inter-connectedness. Having bought into the Cartesian myth “I think, therefore I am” it places rationalism ahead of the spirit, heart, morals, emotions, everything else Man is. Thus, you do not see the connection of mere “facts” with everything else.
What also seems to be a recurring belief here is that it is impossible to divulge facts without a moral context.
Exactly! You got it! Now go read a basic catechism of the Church to find out the relationship between facts and everything else.
As I’ve mentioned, I don’t believe in censorship Right, because everything is a relativistic “viewpoint” that can be inhumanly weighed and considered in inhuman rationality. Anybody that disagrees with your anthropology can be easily written off as a “censor”. How convenient.
It just seems that many Christians are bothered that other views are now entering the arena at all.
Part and parcel of the hard left. Accuse your foes (who disagree with you) of irrationalism – excluding things merely because they are different. Could it be, that some things are right and others wrong? Again, try reading a Catechism…
Part and parcel of the hard left. Accuse your foes (who disagree with you) of irrationalism – excluding things merely because they are different. Could it be, that some things are right and others wrong? Again, try reading a Catachism…
JamesK writes: “It just seems that many Christians are bothered that other views are now entering the arena at all.”
I think many Christians are upset by modernity, and much of what transpires in this venue is a reaction against modernity. Many Christians even feel that modernity is an attack against Christianity. But condemning modernity is like condemning the weather. Modernity is here to stay. It isn’t going anywhere. It isn’t going to be reformed or rejected.
Likewise gay folks are here to stay. In previous decades homosexuals were seen as “the other” — as people utterly unlike “us.” But today homosexuals are our coworkers, friends, and relatives. Thus theological attacks on homosexuality are perceived as personal attacks on coworkers, friends, and relatives.
There are two approaches that Christians can take. The first is that they can attack all of their perceived enemies. This will result in Christianity being perceived as primarily a negative thing.
The second is that they can focus on the positive things of Christianity — the person of Jesus, the community of believers which is the body of Christ, the sacraments, the mysteries of forgiveness, redemption, and forgiveness, the vision of the kingdom of God.
As you said in a previous post “What I’m suggesting is that, at times, remaining silent on certain issues is the lesser of two evils.”
I’m not sure how facts alone came to be seen as a threat to social order.
They aren’t, it is the insistence that facts be interpreted only within a materialistic, egalitarian, dialectic, rationalism with reference only to the individual as an autonomous entity that is the problem. Any “fact” that does not neatly fit into such a structure is deemed to be “poetry” at best.
To answer JamesK’s question: Sexual “lifestyles” should not be taught at all in the public schools. As a matter of public health, parents could be taught how to communicate with their children on such matters (not what to teach, but given information and ideas).
Just out of curiosity, why is the government allowed to teach anything it wants that is in direct contradiction of the tenents of every major faith on the planet without it being a violation of the separation of church and state?
The thinking here seems to be, and I think Christopher might agree with this interpretation, is that there is no such thing as “facts alone,” so there can never be any neutral presentation of factual information.
In this way, conservatives create a rhetorical construct they can call a “culture war.” Because homosexuality is “ungodly,” you cannot present a hypothetical homosexual couple without condemning them; to do so is to “normalize homosexuality.”
In public speaking classes throughout the country, students give “informative speeches” and “persuasive speeches.” It seems the current conservative mindset is that the primary purpose of education is not to inform, but to persuade. Thus, we see the push for abstinence-only sex education or the implication in the above statement that homosexuals shouldn’t learn about safe sex in schools. No one is seriously arguing that we _omit_ all discussion of abstinence from sex education, but there are those who seriously propose that we omit factual information about sex, disease, condoms, etc. The stance here seems to be not that we should strive to eliminate indoctrination from the classroom, but that we should fight indoctrination with indoctrination.
Note 25. James writes:
That’s because you don’t have children. If you had children, the ideas move from hypothetical to real. Gay fairy tales, in other words, is a (deliberate and politically driven) changing of the social order that portends even more down the road. Parents, because they are parents, intuitively understand this.
Note 30 Phil writes:
Rhetorical construct? Let’s see, homosexuals want to expose four year olds to “gay friendly” fairy tales (pun not intended), an obvious gateway to a homosexual “safe sex” curriculum, and this does not represent a divisive cultural shift? And where does this non-culture-war stop? Look at Massachusetts. When the homosexual marriage experiment gained a foothold there (through judicial fiat ignoring any plebiscite), homosexual activists jumped into action immediately (The homosexual marriage agenda in Massachusetts public schools becomes aggressive and militant).
It’s foolish to think that the homosexual rights movement seeks anything less than the normalization of homosexuality in the larger culture, a point not lost on heterosexuals who, although largely tolerant of homosexuals in private social settings, are not willing to grant as the near universal rejection of homosexual marriage initiatives makes clear. There is a world of difference between the toleration of homosexuals within the general moral consensus (as imperfect as people may live it), and the demand that the consensus be overthrown to recognize homosexual relationships on a moral par with monogamous heterosexuality. The latter is what people have problems with, and the demands that creates this non-culture-war is not coming from their side.
(An aside, for a sensitive treatment of the psychological and spiritual dynamics of homosexuality read Struggling Alone.)
Note 28. Jim writes:
This really isn’t accurate. In previous decades, as today, everyone knows who the homosexuals were. Most everyone has homosexual acquaintances. Most everyone knows a family or two with a homosexual child.
The difference was that “in the closet” didn’t necessarily mean hidden. It just meant that private choices remained private; a kind of workable social compromise that avoided the moral and social strife that would inevitably (and necessarily) result if attempts were made to equate homosexual pairings with normative heterosexual relationships.
Maintaining this separation is not a “theological attack”; the reasons for the overwhelming rejection of homosexual marriage are deeper than your caricature allows. Something fundamental is at stake that threatens a necessary and desired stability and many people who have a “live and let live” attitude towards homosexuals sense it. I can go into the reasons for the resistance towards normalizing homosexual pairings another time.
I’m not sure how facts alone came to be seen as a threat to social order.
They aren’t, it is the insistence that facts be interpreted only within a materialistic, egalitarian, dialectic, rationalism with reference only to the individual as an autonomous entity that is the problem.
Michael is correct. When relativists/modernists say “facts”, they really don’t mean facts alone (in a Socratic sense), they are also almost always overlaying them with a morality (certainly when talking about facts such as gay fairy tales). Since they are choosing to alter the definition we have to address “facts” in a different way – that they have moral content.
The thinking here seems to be, and I think Christopher might agree with this interpretation, is that there is no such thing as “facts alone,” so there can never be any neutral presentation of factual information.
I agree, at least in the context of moral discussions (see above). Relativists/modernists, because they essentially don’t recognize the ‘fact’ that we are moral beings in a moral universe, then try to deconstruct moral content into something less than it is. If they choose to call it a ‘fact’ then we have to admit that ‘facts’ have moral content and are not ‘neutral’, as in non-moral like James tries to argue.
In this way, conservatives create a rhetorical construct they can call a “culture war.”
Nah, it’s liberals that try to do the deconstructing. It’s liberals who do not recognize the moral universe (or try to change it into something it’s not) and thus ’cause’ the conflict.
It seems the current conservative mindset is that the primary purpose of education is not to inform, but to persuade.
Again, it’s liberals who have it wrong. Because the have deconstructed the moral universe, they redefine “facts” and turn everything into mere “information”. Conservatives are simply admitting reality – that gay fairy tales, sex education, cultural attitudes towards homosexuals (more importantly homosexual activism), and the like is not “information” because it is not “neutral”. Liberals are simply dishonest (not intentionally, their flat earth view of the moral universe almost forces them) about when and where they are trying to “persuade”.
The stance here seems to be not that we should strive to eliminate indoctrination
Right, because you can not help (man being man) to cross over into the moral universe. “Education” is not about mere “facts” in the pure sense, because man is not about mere “facts”. Thus, you reduce (being a liberal) moral education to something called “indoctrination”…
Christopher, can you explain what “agenda” one may have in teaching calculus, database normalization or cellular mitosis? The vast majority of instruction in education (technology, physics, biology, etc.) involves relaying “value-less” (or neutral) information to students without in any way suggesting how they should utilize that information. Are you asserting that because a student might use his knowledge of acids and bases in chemistry to make a crude sort of bomb that we should avoid teaching physics altogether?
So, I think we’re talking about a very small subset of information about a very limited number of issues, correct?
Honestly, do I think the age of four is “too young” for such fairy tales to be presented? Yes, I do. That doesn’t mean that it should never be presented, however. Then again, I don’t believe that children will pick up witchcraft by merely enjoying Harry Potter novels or that by playing video games they will be more likely to run over a neighbor with a car. I’m sure you’d agree, just as the NRA seems to think that indiscriminately permitting gun sales to any schmo is just a “freedom”, not some sort of implicit endorsement of how they’re to be used, right? 😉
Well, just to pipe in. @ Dean #22
But race, ethnicity and gender are different. You are BORN with those traits, while committing homosexual acts is a choice.
As for addressing how homosexuality should be presented…
I think that it should be presented as a sinful act, and that we should all pray for them, as we pray for all, as we are all sinful people, and try to help them and be supportive of them in overcoming this difficult struggle. May the LORD have mercy on all of us.
As I have posted elsewhere, it pains me greatly that there is so much anger here. Could we please keep to the issues in a respectful manner. Perhaps pretending that you are talking to this person and they are sitting right next to you may help.
P.S I hope Lent is going well for all of you!
Note 33:
True, most of what you cited is generally thought to be “neutral”, and in the vast # of cases usually is. However, even calculus can be used to design a nuke, and biology for eugenics. Soooo, it’s not quite as neutral as a relativist would have us believe. I would hazard a guess that your average high school chemistry teacher does not emphasize the techniques used to produce TNT.
That said, we are talking about gay fairy tales, which are most defiantly not “value neutral”. Your relativism leads you to treat them the same as “information” more properly thought of as “value neutral”.
hat doesn’t mean that it should never be presented, however.
Right, because you are a relativist, & have nothing in principal against the homosexualist agenda. Christianly speaking, your moral “value system” is wrong.
Note 33. James writes:
Not speaking for Christopher, but…
James, moral questions are not settled by trying to eliminate all moral distinctions. So no, Christopher is not asserting that the teaching of physics should be avoided because someone might use the information to make a bomb.
But neither is the implication that teaching homosexual “safe sex” is morally equivalent to the teaching of physics correct either (the real point of your argument).
The incrementalism of cultural Marxism (morally relativistic activism) is a shrewd and effective tactic against people like yourself (see: Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America). It takes the focus off the larger cultural juggernaut, in this case the moral legitimization of homosexual behavior, by shifting the argument to small, often seemingly inconsequential things. It is one reason why the intellectual fog of moral relativism is hard to penetrate.
And that’s where you get a culture war. You’ve got a group of people who wish to be seen, not as superior to everyone else, nor as inferior, but as equal.
What’s the opposite of the legitimization or perceived normalcy that you fear? Constant, pervasive societal ostracism. You might deign to tolerate homosexuals in private settings, but you advocate that every mention of them in the public sphere be accompanied by condemnation. Constant, lifelong condemnation.
Some are suggesting, “Instead of keeping the existence of homosexuals private, let’s keep the condemnation private. Maybe we’d all get along better that way.” And to you, these people are imposing a cultural “war.”
Leaving aside debate about the nature of human sexual orientation, I think we can agree that all humans who engage in sexual activity are making a choice to do so, which is why they deserve the same respect and protections as people making the choice to engage in religious acts. Certainly, Buddhists (for example), can convert to Christianity if they choose, but it does not follow that our society should constantly punish them for their lifestyle choices.
Note 34:
Dean, is that your suggestion of how homosexuality should be presented in public elementary schools? It seems like you’re suggesting that public schools should pretty clearly teach Christian practices. Is that a stance that all the Orthodox on this board agree with? (That’s not a rhetorical question; I’m curious about that.)
Phil: I am Orthodox and I agree with Dean’s statement that homosexuality is sinful and has enormous societal and personal cost but as I said in my post #29:
As to the rest of your post #37 I see the following assumptions underlying your statements: 1. All choices are morally and ontologically equivalent; 2. individual moral choice is superior in all cases to cultural and societal values; 3. Such individual choice should not only be respected by others, but guranteed by the state without consideration for the societal and ontological consequences of said choices.
Michael,
I appreciate your responding. We would probably have a better discussion if you can be specific about which statements of mine lead to your interpretation when you say, for example, that the notion that “All choices are morally and ontologically equivalent” underly my statements.
Your preference might be to respond to the post as a whole, but then I find myself in a position where I am attributing to you beliefs that you might not actually hold–for example, that society should punish Buddhists constantly, for the rest of their lives, because of their lifestyle choices. (You might believe that, but it’s unclear from your post.)
Phil, you say
Engaging in sexual activity is simply not equivalent in any way shape or form with communing with God. All sexual activity has the potential to lead one away from God therefore only one type of sexual activity is given a blessing by God (between a man and a woman in marriage). Even in marriage, modesty and mutual restraint must prevail.
Genuine Buddhists are punished everyday in our culture because of their choice to follow Buddha and your attitudes are one of the reasons. It is not Christians who punish anyone (those who self-identify as Christian and attempt to do so are in violation of the teachings of Christ). People who are really attempting to conform their lives to God’s will are not a problem for Buddhists, folks who refuse to acknowledge the illusion of this world (for Buddhists), the temptation and tryanny of sin (for Christians) and instead demand that everyone be forced to endure polymorphous perversity on every level of thought and deed and then have the gall to proclaim hedonistic abondonment equivalent with a desire to know God through discipline and self-sacrifice are the ones who punish and destroy.
I do not think Phil that you and I have any foundation for what you call discussion.
Alexander Kalomiros writes, “I have the suspicion that men today believe in God more than at any other time in human history. Men know the gospel, the teaching of the Church, and God’s creation better than at any other time. They have a profound consciousness of His existence. Their atheism is not a real disbelief. It is rather an aversion toward somebody we know very well but whom we hate with all our heart, exactly as the demons do.
We hate God, that is why we ignore Him, overlooking Him as if we did not see Him, and pretending to be atheists. In reality we consider Him our enemy par excellence. Our negation is our vengeance, our atheism is our revenge.”
To me, Phil, your words and thoughts expressed on this blog reveal a soul who is in denial of its own nature and reflects Dr. Kalomiros’ understanding of those who are in revolt against Him who made us. All of us are to one degree or another caught up in that same revolt and therefore we must all pray for that same mercy for others that we require. Perhaps in some ways, I am in revolt to an even greater degree than those who refuse to admit God’s reality because I have seen the truth. When I turn away, it is not done in total blindness and ignorance and is therefore more willful.
The culture war is not between you and me or the left and the right, but is waged within each human heart. To pervert the minds and hearts of children with sin simply to make a politcal statement is horrendous and is, in fact, child abuse.
Education should limit itself to teaching children to read, understand mathematics, express themselves verbally, explain and give practice in how to acquire knowledge, give opportunity for work and communicate to them how to think, not what to think. However, without a community context of a shared hierarchy of values that is impossible. Uniform pubic education is no longer possible in this country due to the concerted attack on the very idea of a share hierarchy of values that folks such as you promote.
Not 37. Phil writes:
All sorts of sexual relationships are outside the bounds of moral legitimacy, i.e. adultery, polygamy, bestiality, incest, transvestism, pedophilia, pedastery, etc. Any one of these people or groups can make the same appeal you make above. Some of them already are.
Sorry if you feel that the moral prohibition feels like a condemnation. But the prohibition exists to protect what in fact are fragile relationships that, for the sake of social and family stability, require protection and support. There are reasons why almost all cultures and societies, and why the 2000 year old moral tradition of Western culture, has uniformly ruled homosexual relationships outside the boundary. The anguish that you might feel about the prohibition is not sufficient cause to overturn it.
Read my response to James (note 36). Collapsing distinctions is not the way that moral questions should be addressed. Frankly, you leave open what kinds of “lifestyle choices” people make. Does pedophilia, incest, or adultery qualify as a neutral choice? The same would hold true of religion. Say some far out sect decided to sacrifice animals in the park? Do you really think this is not a matter of broader concern?
Collapsing distinctions doesn’t serve only the gay rights lobbyist, but every other sexual activist as well. That’s why polygamists are starting to bang their drum more loudly. And, if gay marriage is allowed (which represents the triumph of moral parity between homosexual and heterosexual behavior), all barriers against any kind of sexual relationship fall along with it. Sound extreme? Offer me an argument why polygamy should not be allowed if gay marriage is allowed. In fact, polygamy in some ways is more coherent than gay marriage because at least the body plumbing fits.
Again, for a deeper understanding of same-sex pathology, read Struggling Alone.
Fr. Hans writes: “All sorts of sexual relationships are outside the bounds of moral legitimacy, i.e. adultery, polygamy, bestiality, incest, transvestism, pedophilia, pedastery, etc. Any one of these people or groups can make the same appeal you make above. Some of them already are.”
Several of the relationships that you mentioned are illegal. But you’ve said before that you are not in favor of making homosexual relationships between consenting adults illegal. But what is the difference? In other words, if incest is illegal, why not homosexuality?
You say that “the prohibition exists to protect what in fact are fragile relationships that, for the sake of social and family stability, require protection and support.” But in fact you are not in favor of prohibiting homosexual relationships. As far as I know you’ve never said that adultery or transvestism should be illegal.
So it’s odd to me that you talk about “the prohibition” of these things, when in fact you don’t want them prohibited. Condemned in some way, perhaps, but not prohibited. But if homosexuality and all the other things on the above list are so destructive, why wouldn’t you support making all of them illegal? Offer me an argument for why homosexual relationships shouldn’t be illegal, if incest is illegal?
I just had a thought. Why do people want so much freedom to do hurtful things to themselves and others? What is gained by straying from GOD’s path?
If the answer to the second question is “nothing”, then why would anyone support the presentation of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle choice?
As a human being and (I try to be) Christian, I can not see any reason except that they hate themselves and GOD.
How is transvestism a type of sexual relationship? That term refers to wearing clothing typically associated with the opposite sex. Is there really a moral prohibition for that?
Note 24. Should have read transgender, as in LBGT. Still, there is probably a lobby group looking for sanction for this as well.
Note 43. Jim writes:
Homosexual incest is probably illegal too.
Incest often involves coercion and abuse of a younger child by an older one. The attempt to sanction homosexuality in the larger culture is an entirely different issue — different dynamics, goals, etc. There is no incest lobby working to sanction incest, IOW.
Fr. Hans writes: “Incest often involves coercion and abuse of a younger child by an older one. The attempt to sanction homosexuality in the larger culture is an entirely different issue — different dynamics, goals, etc.”
Ok, so we can distinguish between sexual relationships that should be legal or illegal. I agree.
Earlier, you asserted that “if gay marriage is allowed (which represents the triumph of moral parity between homosexual and heterosexual behavior), all barriers against any kind of sexual relationship fall along with it.”
I would argue that in the same way that we can distinguish between sexual relationships should be legal or illegal, we can also distinguish between sexual relationships that should or should not be given the legal sanction of marriage.
You also wrote: “Offer me an argument why polygamy should not be allowed if gay marriage is allowed. In fact, polygamy in some ways is more coherent than gay marriage because at least the body plumbing fits.”
The argument is that we’ve already tried polygamy and rejected it for very good reasons. It leads to the exploitation of women, to treating women as possessions, and often leads to “child brides.” You end up with a shortage of women so that the lower status or poorer males never get to marry anyone.
But it would be difficult to argue against polygamy on the basis that it violates the “moral tradition.” Remember the Ten Commandments, that we’re supposed to glue to every courthouse in the country so as to affirm our Judeo-Christian heritage? The Ten Commandments are contained in same Bible in which many of the central figures had more than one wife. About one-third of Genesis deals with Abraham, who had both wifes and concubines, with never a word of condemnation about that. (The Mormons didn’t invent polygamy; the got it from the Bible.)
Of course none of this shows that homosexual marriage should be legal. But it does mean that homosexual marriage would not entail the end of all marriage distinctions. Just because homosexuals could marry doesn’t mean that you’re going to be able to marry your dog, your sister, your Cadillac, the neighborhood Cub Scouts, or all of their mothers.
More importantly, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Ann Coulter would still be able to support the moral tradition through their own adulteries, multiple marriages and divorces, and sex outside of marriage. So homosexual marriage presents no threat to them either.
It seems like you’re suggesting that public schools should pretty clearly teach Christian practices. Is that a stance that all the Orthodox on this board agree with? (That’s not a rhetorical question; I’m curious about that.)
I am too. We know what paradigm, what ground the liberal/modernists/relativists would have us stand on to determine the “public” content in such a thing as “public education”. In fact, in most cases we know it better than they (look at the questions and arguments they post here, and the culture at large.
What is the moral ground of modern American society today? If I recall correctly (and I may not – probably don’t) Fr. Jacobse has argued that there is still a ground of general “Western Christendom” left, almost as if what is termed the “protestant consensus” still lives on (I agree with those who argue that died around WWII). Is my memory correct or would other Orthodox agree/disagree with that?
Christopher asks:
I don’t think the “Protestant consensus” was ever really alive. It consisted of taking good care of the outside of the cup while ignoring the inside. When the cup finally shattered sometime between 1930 and 1970 what came pouring out of the real heart of our culture was only to be expected: the filth, effluvium and stench of dead men’s bones. There have been several responses: 1. stick a wilted rose in the reeking river and call the mess a rose garden; 2 wildly run around picking up as many shards of the cup as possible even if it is only one tiny piece, stick the shards on the pile and cry out saying “we need more shards and all will be well”; 3 revel in the muck and mire calling on others to jump in ‘cause the water’s fine; 4. try to ignore it hoping it will go away. A miniscule few have dared to call the vast odiferous river of waste what it is—sin. Generally such people are laughed at, ridiculed and ignored.
Politicians of all persuasions make their careers with public promises to build dams, platforms and other structures for their constituents to protect them from the crap, all the while pointing to their opponents as the cause of it all. Privately they are harvesting as much fool’s gold as possible from the stench: living hedonistic lives full of power, fame, privilege, ill-concealed lasciviousness and money. By participating in their hypocritical game we are only adding to the filth and further corrupting ourselves. My beloved Bishop Basil in a sermon many years ago during an election cycle admonished us to remember, “all the politicians lie”.
The answer is simple, profound and difficult: find some people you love and who love you. Join together in a life focused as much as possible on repentance, prayer, fasting and almsgiving. Love your enemies. Do good to those who despitefully use you. Such a way of life translates only indirectly into the geo-political and cultural spheres as Christians and others practice it. One fruit will be the unapologetic calling of others to the same life of repentance.
Clearly one is not practicing the life if he is constantly excusing, minimizing and denying that there is any reason for anyone to repent. The willful refusal to admit that there are behaviors which are wrong simply because they are wrong persists because we do not wish to face our own greater sins. The same can be said of those who live by condemnation of others as the “bad guys” whether the “bad guys” are gays, liberals, conservatives, Christians, etc.
There is a genuine egalitarianism: “We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”
There is a genuine individualism: “I am the chief of sinners”
When we begin to recognize and live by such knowledge we can also begin, with love and mercy, to shovel away the filth and effluvium that is inundating us, streaming from the darkness and hardness of our own hearts.
To change the culture, each of us must respond to God’s calling: reject Satan and all his works; accept the authority of Christ in His Church and unite ourselves with Him. Anything short of that only adds to the stench.