Humanism’s triumph over Ontario Education (1971-2012): Part 2 by David Herbert

During the 1970s, a values clarification exercise titled, ‘The Fallout Shelter Problem’1, was used within the secondary school systems across North America. It envisioned that, during a nuclear attack, ten people raced to a nearby fallout shelter to be informed that it could only provide enough space, air, food and water for six people. Students, after being placed in small groups, were given the task of deciding which four people would be denied entry into the shelter.

As rightfully expected, parents questioned the validity of having their students make such moral judgements. But what teachers were asking of their students was consistent within the established value system which was “relative, personal and situational.”2 Another option—being even more salacious—was ‘The Alligator River Story.’3

By the end of the 1970s, parental reaction which was both continual and intense against values clarification eventually caused the demise of the program. But one should not be duped into believing that, since the formal program of values clarification had been abandoned, these same values were not being propagated. Since the biblical value system of absolutes no longer was permitted within the classrooms, by default, the humanistic ones reigned supreme!

In 1981, Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984), a leading Christian apologist, rang the alarm bell against the encroachments of Humanism in his book, A Christian Manifesto. It was an evangelical response to the Humanist Manifestoes l and ll. He wrote: “By way of contrast, the humanist world view includes many thousands of adherents and today controls the consensus in society, much of the media, much of what is taught in our schools, and much of the arbitrary law being produced by the various departments of government.”4 Within a decade, Dr. Schaeffer’s warning concerning the in-roads of Humanism within the legal system in North America came to fore in the Ontario courtrooms.

In 1989, a family of the Baha’i faith complained to the local St. Thomas School Board about the weekly religious training conducted by the Elgin County Bible Club. For nearly a half a century, volunteers from this organization presented biblical truths to students within the regular instructional classroom time. This family in consultation with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association challenged this long-standing practice.

A year later, the case of Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Minister of Education (1990) was heard and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Consequently, a new policy concerning religious training within Ontario schools was implemented; it was termed, “Education About Religion in the Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.”

Three germane stipulations were:

1. The school may sponsor the study of religion, but may not sponsor the practice of religion.

2. The school’s approach is one of instruction, not one of indoctrination.

3. The school should strive for student awareness of all religions, but should not press for student acceptance of any one religion.5

The Humanists, having successfully witnessed the expunging of Christianity out of public education, had one more hurdle to leap over—the legitimization and acceptance of homosexuality/lesbianism as a normal lifestyle.

The greatest impetus in achieving their goal occurred on 19 July 2005 when the Canadian government enacted Bill C-38 which officially legalized same-sex marriages. Six years later, the Toronto District School Board—the largest in Ontario—enacted “Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum Resource Guide.” Appendix B, a memorandum to all principals, states: “It is important to note that no student can be exempted from Human Rights Education.”5 Any parental objection to the teaching of homosexuality/lesbianism on religious grounds would be denied. In other words, Human Rights Education would always trump religious rights and freedoms.

In Ontario, students who are being homeschooled or those who attend private schools are not enrolled in public education and hence are not subject to educational policies legislated by the Ministry of Education. Such is not the case in Alberta.

In that province, ‘school’ is defined as all forms of educational instruction which would include those students who are being homeschooled or in private schools. Consequently, “Homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program.”6 But homeschooling parents would have the freedom to convey their personal convictions during non-instructional times. During an interview with Paul Faris, executive director of the Home School Legal Defense,7 he expressed concern as to how the Ministry of Education would monitor this obvious dichotomy. The basic principle of homeschooling education has been based on a holistic educational approach in which the home and school are totally integrated.

There is absolutely no doubt that Humanism has total control of the Ontario educational system from kindergarten to the Ph.D. level. But one should not forget that universities are totally committed humanistic institutions that are graduating our teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, judges and most of all our politicians—all of whom have been educated to assume “the role as the proselytizers of a new faith, a religion of humanity.”8

Footnotes:

1. Sidney Smith et al., Values Clarification: A Handbook For Teachers and Students, rev. ed. (New York: Hart, 1978), 281-286. It was exercise #48.

2. David Lipe, “A Critical Analysis of Values Clarification,” at http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/critical-analysis-of-values-cla.pdf, 16 (accessed 6 March 2012).

3. Smith et al., Values Clarification: A Handbook For Teachers and Students, 290-294. It was exercise #50.

4. F. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway, 1981), 24.

5. Ontario Ministry of Education, “Part A: Introduction—History of Religious Education in Ontario Schools” in “Education About Religion in Ontario Public Elementary Schools (2007),” at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/religion/religioe.html#PartA (accessed 4 February 2012). Italics were in the original.

5. Toronto District School Board, “Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum Guide” (2011) at http://www.tdsb.on.ca/wwwdocuments/programs/Equity_in_Education/docs/Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism Final 2011.pdf, 212 (accessed 7 March 2012).

6. Patrick Craine, “Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexual acts sinful in class says Alberta government,” LifeSiteNews (23 February 2012) at http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-homeschooling-families-cant-teach-homosexuality-a-sin-in-class-sa (accessed 26 February 2012).

7. Interview on Wednesday, 1 March 2012.

8. J. Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist 43 (Jan/Feb 1983), 26.

 

Christianity Truly Offers Gender Equality by Allen R. Mickle Jr.

The Scranton Times-Tribune ran an article on October 2, 2010 about a recent lecture celebrating “Feminist First Friday” at the University of Scranton. The emphasis is to provide full equality for men and women. As Christianity is often criticized for not offering full equality for men and women (particularly against women) I thought it helpful to articulate an important thought: Christianity truly offers gender equality.

Now, first some caveats. I would imagine that no one would think there are no differences between men and women. There are obvious physiological differences (a fourth grade anatomy class can tell us that) and obvious relational differences (any new married couple can tell us that) but I would imagine the University would accept these differences. But, besides these basic differences, can there be true equality?

Biblical Christianity is criticized because it argues that women cannot fill the office of bishop (or elder or pastor). They articulate clearly from such passages as 1 Timothy 2:12 which reads “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” that in the church women cannot have the top leadership position. The reality is that the plain sense of this passage is clear and unless you want to throw it out of the Bible then it’s there and we need to deal with it. But that’s another matter. Also, Biblical Christianity recognizes that the husband is the head of the home. Ephesians 5:22–23 reads “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.” Again, a face value reading gives a quite obvious meaning of these verses. So, Christianity articulates that some roles and responsibilities are intrinsically different between men and women. But, at the foundational core, Christianity teaches complete equality. What do I mean?

Before God all people are sinners; completely equal in their sin (Romans 3:23). It does not matter whether they are men or women, Jew or Gentile, or whatever, all people everywhere are sinners, and equally condemned before God (Romans 5:12). And while this is incredibly bad news for all, both men and women, there is great news for all too. Christ died for sinful men and women. “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:17). And now, Christians, stand before God, completely equal. Galatians 3:28 reads, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” All people, whether male or female, if they trust Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, are completely equal before God: they are all God’s children.

So, who offers complete equality between men and women? Secular feminism? Not likely. Only Biblical Christianity offers complete equality between men and women where it counts: before God.