Sexual Indoctrination,Religious Liberty,and UNESCO

Those who hold to traditional/Biblical values are coming into increasing conflict with the homosexual movement and those who are attempting to indoctrinate our kids with sexually perverted materials. Here are some examples of those battles.

Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts

Edited by: Douglas Laycock, Anthony R Picarello Jr and Robin Fretwell Wilson,
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, 2008, xiv + 329pp, £22.99
ISBN 978-0742563261

Sweden has recently joined the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Norway, by becoming the fifth European country to pass legislation to permit same-sex marriage.¹ While there are no formal proposals to legislate for same-sex marriage in the UK, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, recently condemned the decision of the Californian electorate to limit marriage to unions between one man and one woman. The Prime Minister declared that the ban on same-sex marriage, backed by a referendum in the American state, was ‘unacceptable’ and would ‘undo good that has been done’.²

The purpose of this title is not to debate the pros and cons of same-sex marriage, but rather to consider the implications for religious freedom if same-sex marriage were to be approved. The book arose out of a gathering of seven prominent legal scholars and practitioners in December 2005 convened by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a legal and educational institute dedicated to protecting the free expression of all legal traditions. The issue is stated very plainly by Marc Stern:

‘The legislation of same-sex marriage would represent the triumph of an egalitarian-based ethic over a faith-based one, and not just legally. The remaining question is whether champions of tolerance are prepared to tolerate proponents of a different ethical vision. I think the answer will be no. Within certain defined areas, opponents of gay rights will be unaffected by an embrace of same-sex marriage. But in others, the impact will be substantial.’

Rest of the article here – http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=137#same

From Fox News,an article illustrating the point of the above article :

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.

“It’s a very dangerous precedent,” Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, told FOX News Radio. “The ruling doesn’t say that explicitly, but that’s what is going to happen.”

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.

The university contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics.

“Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF senior counsel David French. “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”

Eastern Michigan University hailed the decision.

“We are pleased that the court has upheld our position in this matter,” EMU spokesman Walter Kraft said in a written statement. “Julea Ward was not discriminated against because of her religion. To the contrary, Eastern Michigan is deeply committed to the education of our students and welcomes individuals from diverse backgrounds into our community.”

In his 48-page opinion, Judge Steeh said the university had a rational basis for adopting the ACA Code of Ethics.

“Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values,” he wrote in a portion of his ruling posted by The Detroit News. “In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

Ward’s attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a “remediation” program so that she could “see the error of her ways” and change her belief system about homosexuality.

Read the rest here – http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/#content

Good information from a Pro-Family group in Great Britain:

New UNESCO Guidelines aim to desensitize children, parents and teachers and promote liberal sexual attitudes worldwide

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has prepared some International Guidelines on Sexuality Education as part of a social engineering exercise aimed at foster liberal sexual attitudes and behaviour across the world. The guidelines present sexuality education as ‘part of the duty of care of education and health authorities and institutions’ and a ‘need and entitlement’ of all children from the age of five.

Sex education for 5-8s
According to the guidelines, children as young as 5-8 should be taught that: ‘Many different kinds of families exist around the world (e.g. two-parent, single parent, child-headed, guardian-headed, extended and nuclear families, same-sex couple parents, etc.).’ They should further be subjected to a programme of sex education that includes the following elements:

• Different kinds of love and different ways of expressing it;
• Gender roles and gender bias;
• Examples of gender stereotypes;
• Difference between consensual sexual activity and forced sex;
• Girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by   oneself;
• It is natural to explore and touch parts of one’s own body;
• Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation;
• Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in private.

Sex education for 9-12s
For children aged 9-12, ‘a broad, rights-based approach to sexuality education’ will cover:

• Importance of gender equality in terms of roles and responsibilities within families;
• Specific steps involved in obtaining and using condoms and contraception, including emergency contraception;
• Overcoming gender bias and inequality;
• Specific means of preventing unintended pregnancy;
• Correct and consistent use of condoms and contraception to prevent pregnancy, HIV and other STIs;
• Relationship between excitement and vaginal lubrication, penile erection and ejaculation;
• Masturbation is often a person’s first experience of sexual pleasure;
• Definition and function of orgasm;
• Concept, examples and positive and negative effects of ‘aphrodisiacs’;
• Options available to teenagers who are unintentionally pregnant;
• Definition of abortion;
• Legal status of abortion locally and globally;
• Legal abortion performed under sterile conditions by medically trained personnel is safe.

Sex education for 12-15s
At 12-15, pupils progress to learning:

• If sexual active [sic], using communication skills to practice safe and consensual sex;
• Respect for the different sexual orientations and gender identity;
• Masturbation is a safe and valid expression of sexuality;
• Contraceptives and condoms give people the opportunity to enjoy their sexuality without unintended consequences;
• Both men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure with a partner of the same or opposite sex;
• Regardless of their marital status, sexually active young people have the right to access contraceptives and condoms;
• Obtaining and using condoms and contraceptives (including emergency contraception where legal and available);
• Overcoming barriers to obtaining and using condoms and contraception;
• Identify local sources of condoms and contraceptives;
• Use and misuse of emergency contraception;
• Access to safe abortion and post-abortion care;
• People living with HIV have a right to sexuality education and to express their love and feelings via sexuality

.Read the rest here – http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=137#same

This curriculum mirrors the sex-ed curriculum causing a great deal of controversy in Helena,Montana.

http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=137#same

Make no mistake,UNESCO,Planned Parenthood,SIECUS,and others are working out of the same playbook,and  the desensitization of the children is considered as the key to the breaking down of the moral barriers of the students.