Australia's Safe Schools program is so bizarre and fact-free that you can describe it as a cult, says an academic
is headed by the following abstract:
Around the world, at least the English-speaking world, parents and politicians are under pressure to accept the scientific and moral validity of same-sex relationships and the transgender lifestyle. Fortunately, there has been a pushback from academics dismayed by the lack of academic rigour in many claims. Today we feature the main ideas of a report by University of Sydney law professor Patrick Parkinson. Tomorrow we will summarise the ideas of a landmark article by Kansas State University sociologist Walter Schumm.
The article commences:
One of the biggest setbacks for same-sex marriage in Australia has been the uproar around curriculum materials produced by the national Safe Schools Coalition (SSCA) for children in years 7 and 8.
These are supposed to stop bullying of homosexual and transgender students, but they also involve educating all students about sensitive topics, including sexual morality. Hundreds of schools, mostly government-run, have signed up. After noisy protests from parents, religious groups and politicians, the Federal Government stepped in and forced the SSCA to make significant changes.
However, the state of Victoria decided to forgo Federal funding and maintain the original program. Its Safe Schools group, based at La Trobe University, seceded from the national coalition and the state government plans to roll out its curriculum in all of its schools.
Perhaps because opponents are being painted as homophobes and knuckle-dragging right-wingers, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the program (although MercatorNet didpublish our own analysis last December.) The Federal Government commissioned a critique by a professor at the University of Western Australia, Bill Louden – but he had a mere two weeks to cobble his whitewash together.
Now, however, an Australian expert in family law, Patrick Parkinson, a professor at the University of Sydney, entered the fray. His review, posted on the internet over the weekend, is scathing.
Academically, he says, the Safe Schools program is so bad that it presents “a reputational problem for La Trobe University”. Medically, its guidelines are reckless. Legally, it offers misleading advice.
There are numerous links to other articles, most of which I have not enabled, but they are all well worth following up from the original article if you have an interest in the moral and psychological welfare of our children.
Re: For those tolerant people intolerant of traditional religion . . .
And, John, we need to learn to recognise the faithful and wise Catholics from the unfaithful and wily, especially bishops, as the following so clearly exposes. Unfortunately, Pope Francis can hardly escape being so categorized.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u.s.-bishop-makes-erotic-sex-ed-mandatory-cites-vatican-sex-ed-to-parents-w U.S. bishop makes ‘erotic’ sex-ed mandatory, cites Vatican sex-ed to parents wanting opt-out NASHVILLE, Tennessee, September 19, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) Excerpts: A U.S. Catholic bishop has explicitly refused to allow parents to opt their kids out of a diocesan-run school’s sex-ed program deemed by parents to be “erotic” and “salacious,” calling the program a “legitimate requirement” for graduation. Instead of listening to the parents’ concerns, the bishop has cited the Vatican’s newly minted and problematic sex-ed curriculum as a way to evaluate the school’s program. In a letter dated September 2, Bishop David Choby of the Catholic Diocese of Nashville, Tennessee, told parents opposing the sex-ed program that while he “wholeheartedly support[s]” their right as “primary educator,” nevertheless, when they send their children to school, they no longer exercise that right when it comes to school “requirements.” The Vatican sex ed, released in July during World Youth day in Poland, has been criticized by international life and family organizations and leaders for being contrary to previous Church teaching, for subverting parents, and for corrupting children. Here are some of the criticisms: • American Life League: “‘The Meeting Point’ [sex-ed] equivocally mentions parents in the presentation, but in reality, does not keep parents in the loop and puts sex education in the hands of others. This is contrary to Church teaching and frighteningly similar to Planned Parenthood’s method. Subverting parents is reason enough to jettison this project.” • Cardinal Newman Society: The Vatican sex-ed “compromises the innocence and integrity of young people as it is currently written and should not be implemented in Catholic schools.” • Catholic psychiatrist Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons: The Vatican sex-ed is the “most dangerous threat to Catholic youth that I have seen over the past 40 years.” It “constitutes sexual abuse of Catholic adolescents” and contains pornographic images “similar to those used by adult sexual predators of adolescents.” • Society for the Protection of Unborn Children: “It is entirely inappropriate for children to be exposed to explicit sexual imagery, such as that contained in this course, and to be encouraged to discuss sexual matters in a classroom environment. Parents must not be under any illusion: … [This] marks the surrender of the Vatican authorities to the worldwide sexual revolution and directly threatens their own children.” • Dr. Thomas Ward, President of the National Association of Catholic Families: The program is “thoroughly immoral” and amounts to a “complete rupture from the teaching of the Church throughout the ages about the parent as primary educator.”
Bishop Choby concluded his letter by chastising the parents for raising their concerns and gaining “notoriety,” stating that it puts their children attending the school in an “awkward position.”