When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.
—Adolph Hitler. November 6, 1933
Introduction
My sister-in-law told me about an event called "Day of Silence" put on my a group called GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network). While this information came too late for me to write about this as a warning before it happened, I can at least comment on this so people of good will can be aware of what can only be described as propaganda aimed at indoctrinating the youth.
The claimed purpose of this event is to protest against bullying in the public schools. However, when one looks at the materials, what we see is a concerted effort to undermine the moral teaching authority of parents and their religious faiths through misrepresentation and bad logic. It is intended to push a radical agenda which portrays "alternate sexual preferences" as merely a matter of taste and not morality. Because this activity happens in schools, it aims its agenda at people who are considered vulnerable with no chance defending the family religious beliefs until after the fact.
The designed exercises seem aimed to presenting their views as true while pressuring youth who know what is right to cave in or keep silent.
My sister-in-law tells me she kept her son home from school on the day of the event (4/19/13). After reading the material, I can only conclude she is a very wise woman. While I only found out about this event after the fact, I still think it is good to write about this so that people may be aware of this in the future and consider how they might protect their children from overt indoctrination.
Because there is so much to consider, I will focus mainly on one area of attack which happens to be my area of expertise.
Undermining Religious Beliefs of a Family
One example of their tactics in indoctrination is to ask whether Jesus condemned homosexuality in the Bible. They answer that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. They point out that these condemnations show up in Paul and in the Old Testament. The intended conclusion they want to draw is that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, He would have condemned it by name.
The problem is, by this logic, Jesus never condemned bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia or the like. He never condemned incest either. Come to think of it, He never mentioned consent either, so rape is theoretically OK by this argument.
So are we to assume that Jesus was an "anything goes" type of person? If we accept this kind of argument, we have to assume Jesus was in favor of all sorts of sexual behavior – behavior that promoters of homosexuality get extremely angry over when we point this out.
Actually the "Jesus never said anything about [X]… therefore [X] is ok" argument is a logical fallacy called "argument from silence." The reason this fallacy makes the argument invalid is because silence neither proves support or hostility. However, we can find out what Jesus thought about marriage from other things He said. For example, Matthew 19 tells us:
He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6)
So what we see is that while Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality by name, he explicitly declares that God's intention (from the beginning [see Matt 19:8]) is for man and woman to be married in a lifelong relationship.
What this shows is we have people who are willing to misrepresent what Jesus taught in order to undermine the family beliefs and convictions.
Conclusion
So here's why you should be alarmed, whether you have children in school or not. People who are willing to misrepresent what a person says in order to make a point are behaving dishonestly. Even if one disagrees with Christian teaching on sexual morality, a person of good will should want to condemn a deliberate misrepresentation made in order to deceive someone (called sophistry).
If a group claims to want tolerance and dialogue, they should be open to seeking out the best possible representation of both sides to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments. But if they misrepresent, if they use false arguments, if they intimidate in order to get young people to support their position then we do not have tolerance and dialogue.
Instead we have indoctrination and propaganda.
People of good will should be aware of the fact that this sort of event engages in unscrupulous tactics to push an agenda that parents have every right to oppose. Parents who oppose such events should be supported, and schools who try to allow such events should be opposed.
