Read those lines before.

From the evangelicals who infected the Social Credit Party way back when. They don't get the
big picture.

School curriculum is a provincial - not a federal - responsibility.

He says its about rights, but seems to be that those "rights" are being advanced over the majority rights of others.

Where have we heard that before?

He has every opportunity to petition the Ministry of Education just like anyone else.

Mr. Roodnick says he was approached about running for a federal nomination a month ago--that would be just about the time he launched his "Concerned Parents of BC" media campaign (late August, when any back-to-school issue is guaranteed to generate maximum media attention). What fortuitous timing for him!

And just as he got the "Concerned Parents" into high gear, he's switching tracks and eyeing a federal seat. Because, he says, the Corren case is a "rights issue. And a rights issue is federal." Never mind that the Corren case was actually heard by the BC Human Rights Tribunal, which investigates & mediates complaints of discrimination under the *provincial* Human Rights Code. Still, one must follow the higher calling, I understand, and not sweat the material stuff.

And we're assured now that his main concern all along has been the *rights* of other parents to have equal access to curruculum development. Never mind that he was originally quoted as objecting to having gay content in the required curriculum, period. So even if he won "equal rights" for conservative activists in curriculum development, he'd still need divine intervention to ensure the outcome excluded any mention of gay stuff.

Hhhmmm! It appears that the Lord isn't the only one working in mysterious ways here.

'kay. I looked at the website.

He's pretty slick, though he's got an interesting view on just when these rights he's fighting to regain started to be eroded - "We have seen the rights of parents slowly eroded over time when first the government and educational professionals ... usurped the rights and authority of parents in the education of their children."
Oh. Then. When we started having public schools and paid teachers and stuff.

I've been active in my kids' school and I feel distinctly un-surped. I was on the PAC and on the School Planning Council, where parents outnumbered the principal and staff and it worked pretty well(may i be struck dead for saying a nice thing about Christy Clark).

Just two questions for Mr. Right:

if the whole rights thingie is federal, how come this deal ended up being done because of the BC Human Rights Code?

if obvisouly not more information about homosexuals or social justice, what is it that the parents his coalition wants to represent would add to the curriculum?

More great news for Raymond Chan and the Richmond Liberals!

Not to mention others who love to see wacky Tories as candidates for Canada's New Government.

Here's what the Conservatives top guy said last year about their boneheaded choice of Darrel Reid as Richmond candidate - now amazingly gone on to chief of staff to Environment Minister Rona "No Kyoto" Ambrose.

Remember kiddies, this is the Conservatives' guy commenting, not a Liberal or NDPer.

Richmond Review

Darrel Reid wins nomination by six votes

By Martin van den Hemel
Staff Reporter
May 19 2005

Bob Ransford, co-chair of the B.C. campaign for the Conservatives during the last federal election, said he was "disappointed at the outcome overall."

"(Bill) Majcher would have been the more credible candidate," he said. "My concern with Mr. Reid is his background with the movement that mixes religion with politics."

Ransford insisted that until the Conservative Party shows it doesn't have a hidden agenda, "we're not going to get elected," he said.

Ransford congratulated Reid for signing up the most members and getting his supporters out to the meeting. Although he wasn't at the Sunday meeting for health reasons, Ransford said he's been told that questions around how the voting was handled have again cropped up.

Some concerns that were raised included administrative errors and membership lists that were not updated.

He'd like to see the constituency become more professional, because over the last two nomination meetings he's observed, there has been "a lot of incompetence."

Ransford said he's been disappointed with past candidates, referring to Joe Peschisolido (elected as an Alliance MP, then bolted to the Liberals) and Alice Wong, describing one as a "complete and utter disaster," while noting the other couldn't get elected.

He's got to be better than Reid who did not live in the riding. He seems to be a resident of the Richmond riding that he wants to run in.

I don't think the accusation of him being an opportunist is fair just because his activities resulted in a lot of media attention, it was around the start of the school year. When else could this have happened? He didn't go to all this bother just to give himself a base of people to sign up for a nomination. I'm sure he has a long term commitment to the Conservative Party as the nomination rules require him to be a member for the last six months.

Of course he has to put his attention on the Conservative Government as they have refused to deal with issues like this and abortion, it is vital to put strong committed devout religious people in Parliament as Harper keeps breaking his promises to truly religious community. It is very clear that the provincial government and the school board are against us.

I'm sure he has thought this through and is ready to do what Darryl Reid could not do, stand up to the left wing media and defend Christian rights.

Onward ...

Is it true Darrell Reid is Rona Ambrose's new Chief of Staff? Anyone?

To Canada's homosexual community concerned about Harper conservative attitudes toward gays (and the upcoming vote on gay marriage): persecution in the name of the state or of religion is harmful... and you know it.

To address the general issue of persecution, centuries ago European Christians recognized the need to neither use religion to attack the state nor use the state to attack religion. The principle was also applied to individuals; neither religion nor the state should be used to persecute individuals. Accordingly, constitutional Wester democracies were born that used the rule of law to balance the rights of religion, the state, and the individual. Even so, imbalances persist and there is still suffering because of persecution.

Of course you should find safety under the law and equal treatment. The rule of law should exist to protect you. Sadly though, even when the law is working for you it is not your friend. The law merely judges what contracts apply to you. And, the law will judge what responsibilities you have and hold you to them. The law is stone cold in that regard. You should not have to fight for fairness under the law - that is your right. However you need more than the law's cold comfort.

You need love, friendship, and peace. We all do. (Education pointing that out might be helpful.) I hope that as you live and offer empathetic companionship to others it is returned to you. I hope the law and the courts are fair to you and they recognize the equal contract rights that are yours. But just as importantly, I hope you find peace and happiness.

Peace to you.

With respect,

Eugene Parks

"defend Christian rights."

What the heck are "Christian rights"?? Do us Christians (including myself who is Anglican)
have any specialised rights that over ride the rights of others, le'ts say those who are Buddist, Jewish, Sikh, or what have you?

This seems to be a building up of what the Conservatives don't need. the Evangelical movement towards another Crusades.

Roodnick seems like a one trick pony, a single issue person who is taking an "interest" in other issues to bury his own hidden one.

Reid bows out of race

DARREL REID ...off to Ottawa
By Matthew Hoekstra
Staff Reporter
Richmond Review
Sep 28 2006

Darrel Reid has withdrawn from the race to be Richmond’s next Conservative candidate.

Reid made the decision with his campaign team Sunday after he was offered a position in Ottawa as chief of staff to Minister of Environment Rona Ambrose. Reid took the job and left early this week for Ottawa.

“We have decided it’s just not pragmatic, because he’ll be basically commuting to Ottawa, so we have withdrawn from the nomination,” said Holden Bowker, Reid’s former campaign chair.

Reid was running against Howard Jampolsky for the Richmond Conservative riding nomination. The two locked horns in a 2005 nomination battle, which Reid won by six votes.

Reid, who once served as chief of staff to former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, replaces Daniel Bernier, who left the minister’s office in June.

Reports suggested Bernier was a scapegoat because of the heat Ambrose has faced in her portfolio. Others suggested he left because he didn’t share the government’s environmental philosophy.

With his withdrawal, Reid gives up another good chance to become Richmond’s MP. He ran unsuccessfully in the Jan. 23 election, losing to Liberal Raymond Chan by 1,808 votes. Chan has held the riding since 2004 and before that was MP from 1993 to 2000.

Gary Cross, the Conservative riding association president, said Tuesday there have been “lots of people interested” in joining the race to be the next Tory candidate, but so far Jampolsky is the only one who’s committed to running.

The nomination meeting is expected to be called in late November. By then, Cross expects some challengers will have surfaced.

“That seat is too close for us to win, that a good person with ambition to go to Ottawa wouldn’t be tempted to run in Richmond.”

Jampolsky said he didn’t know why Reid decided to bow out, but offered his rival compliments, saying he will be a “valuable asset” to the government.

“He has the experience to do that job, and it’s an important job,” he said. “He’s extremely well educated, he knows his way around the Hill very well.”

Even though his chances of winning the nomination have improved dramatically, Jampolsky said his game plan hasn’t changed.

“I liked my chances before and I like my chances now,” he said. “I don’t know if other candidates will come forward. I have every reason to believe that people want to run for Parliament. This is a seat that’s potentially winnable.”

Reid did not return a phone call by press time.

Somebody should let all the lunatic flotsam and jetsam at Small Dead Animals know about Mr Roodnick. They can start defending him with their usual colourful style of commentary. And with that material on the record the other parties can go about making Roodnick the new Randy White! Between the softwood fiasco and this recurring problem the outlook for federal Tories in BC is not positive. A loss of at least five, more likely ten seats is highly indicated.

"Reid made the decision with his campaign team Sunday after he was offered a position in Ottawa as chief of staff to Minister of Environment Rona Ambrose. Reid took the job and left early this week for Ottawa."

At some point the mainstream media will notice that the environment ministry's cabinet office is filling up with people that know nothing about the portfolio - including Ambrose. Recent attempts to change environment cdn's website to include partisan propaganda against global-warming made the point. Adding a staffer with para-church experience will provide "rhetorical" support but will not provide subject matter executive experience to Ambrose's office, she badly needs for Canada's environment sake.

Eugene, maybe hiring people with "the right connections" is part of Ms Ambrose's new strategy to address climate change. The scathing new report out today suggests they're going to need all the help they can get!

Dawn writes: "Eugene, maybe hiring people with "the right connections" is part of Ms Ambrose's new strategy to address climate change. The scathing new report out today suggests they're going to need all the help they can get!"

Eugene Parks responds: ... which of many scathing report are you referring to?

Do you also mean to infer that Ambrose seems to think rhetoric is environmental management?

Dawn
I'm all for Ms. Ambrose making use of any resources that would help her become an Environment minister, but i'm concerned about the possiblity of an emissions strategy reliant on divine intervention.

Even more so with the involvement of people whose creed seems to betray a sense that, since the good will be taken up in the rapture sooner rather than later, there's not really a problem with exercising our god-given dominion over nature in a way that leaves behind a de-nuded rock where the rest of us can choke on our own fumes or get flooded by melting ice caps

A note to Heaney:
MP Joe Comartin has been involved in organizing a caucus of regular church goers in the NDP. Too much damning of all religion (I don't mean lunatics like the Small Dead crowd) becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy at the polls.

Mr. Roodnick's true agenda was exposed in his interview with Xtra West last week.

He maintains his concerns are about parental consent to curriculum but in the interview, he admits "There are people who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle."

Nuff said. Mr. Roodnick trots out the creaky old anti gay and offensive code words "homosexual lifestyle."

He seems like a perfit fit for Harper's gang in Ottwawa though.

I do hope he secures his nomination, it is sure way to elect a Liberal MP in Richmond.

Read Xtra Wests' editorial below (shared with permission) and decide for yourself what the real agenda is.

Beware of Concerned Parents

Conservative group opposes gay-friendly curriculum

Robin Perelle / Xtra West / Wednesday, September 13, 2006
There's a brand new group on BC's conservative horizon and its leader can sound pretty persuasive.

Concerned Parents of BC sprang to life a month ago to object to the Corren curriculum settlement.

The settlement, reached this spring between spouses Murray and Peter Corren and the BC government, saw the government actually acknowledge that queer realities have been excluded from classrooms until now--and take baby steps to rectify the situation.

Specifically, the government promised to develop an elective Social Justice course with a touch of queer content for 2007; enforce its policies prohibiting parents from yanking their kids out of all but three courses they might find morally objectionable; and develop gay-friendly guidelines for its curriculum reviews.

The settlement also says the government should consult the Correns every step of the way.

And that's a sore point for Concerned Parents of BC.

This settlement gives a special interest group "privileged access" to the curriculum review process, and that's not fair to parents, says the group's chair, Brian Roodnick.

The Correns get regular meetings with the Ministry of Education, they get a say in the curriculum review, they get mediation if they're not happy with the review--parents don't get any of that, he says. "I can send my input into the Ministry. If the Ministry chooses to ignore it, I have no further access."

He's got a point.

Though the Correns' role is merely consultative and hardly binding, they now have a seat--however powerless--at the internal review table. Parents, in contrast, can only contribute their views on proposed course changes once they're presented publicly for external review.

I'm not going to pretend that's equal access.

But I am going to remind Roodnick that the equal access model wasn't working. That's why the government agreed to this settlement in the first place: because it acknowledged there was merit to the Correns' human rights complaint and conceded it had been excluding gays and lesbians.

This is not a question of granting queers privileged access. It's a question of granting us basic access long overdue.

Roodnick won't be swayed so easily. He maintains the process is unfair and that parents' rights are being eroded.

He also assures me that his concerns with the Corren settlement have nothing to do with adding gay content to BC's classrooms.

"We're not fighting against homosexuality," he insists. "We're fighting for parents' rights."

In fact, he says, he welcomes the opportunity to make the curriculum more inclusive--provided it's done right.

"What's the right way to teach kids about gays and lesbians?" I ask.

You have to "present both sides of the issue," he replies. "When education only teaches one side then it's more indoctrination or propaganda."

So what are the two sides to this issue? I press.

"It's kind of like evolution and creation," he replies. "The theory of evolution, it's still just a theory. I mean, a lot of people think it's a fact, but they call it the theory of evolution." So you have to present it as such and also respect that some kids believe in creationism. And you have to tell those kids: "You're completely within your right to have that view."

So whose perspectives would you like to see included on gay and lesbian issues? I ask.

The discrimination gay people face needs to be addressed, he says. But you also have to address the discrimination against people of faith. They've practically been "evicted" from the public school system.

It's the freedom of conscience perspective, he continues. "There are people who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle."

Not about content, my ass. Dig a little deeper and it seems the real reason Roodnick's so worried about queers getting "privileged access" is because they might slip some purely positive gay imagery into the classroom.

The question is: who will the government heed in the end? The queer consultants it grudgingly invited to its internal review table, or the increasingly loud protestors like Roodnick who will surely flood the external review process with their objections when the time comes?

Heaney writes: ".... people whose creed seems to betray a sense that, since the good will be taken up in the rapture sooner rather than later, there's not really a problem with exercising our god-given dominion over nature in a way that leaves behind a de-nuded rock where the rest of us can choke on our own fumes or get flooded by melting ice caps "

Eugene Parks responds: Easy there friend, none of the major branches of Christianity have any such creed (neither, Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, nor Protestantism). The meaning of the "Rapture of the Saints" has no such meaning for most branches of Christianity. Some sectarian branches, primarily centered in the US and branching out from there, believe as you noted above; but, those views are not accepted in any way to be foundational/creedal by any major branch of Christianity - not even close. In fact, such views are generally considered to be "in error" by Catholics, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism and most protestant denominations. The perspective you referred to above would be considered "heresy" if claimed as creedal. I'm not in agree with you to associate creedal claims with "irregular" perspectives.

I would agree that unhinging views such as cutting and running from the earth or views that deny science and claim that the earth is 8,000 years old are dangerous and at best not conducive to responsible scientific management of the environment. Reid's former organization has actively promoted guests that hold such views on its radio show, in its literature, and at conventions (references available and I'm a first-hand witness as well). If Amborse wants to be part of environmental management, I think she should distance herself from such perspectives and explain her scientific understanding for doing so in order to be clear she gets the issue here.

How absurd?! How were gays and lesbians being excluded prior to this? You go to school to learn, to become educated. If more people spent more time emphasizing this to their kids, we'd all be better off. Instead, at lunch break their comparing piercings and JLo outfits.

Bloody hell, what happen to home ec., and woodworking and any other the other slew of electives? Something as sacred and sensitive as where a child might choose or have the inclination to put their nether regions doesn't belong in a classroom at such a fragile age. Maybe some kids are advanced. What happened to letting kids be kids? How do you know that the instructor doesn't go too far?? Will he reasonably explain the begonias or tell it's okay to get your face right in there, right her, right now? How does that translate to a child?

This Corren Agreement is the sleeper idiot piece this Government has agreed to. I am very disappointed and would venture a guess that if you took a survey of most parents, they would feel identically with me. The Correns get nothing more than a consultative role? Bullshit.
This is the pioneering Pandora's box of social-sexual engineering.

When it comes to adults and adult behavior, I say live and let live, anything goes, provided you aren't hurting anyone and it's consensual.

But kids need not be bashed over the head with all this sexual dogma about "homophobia" (a contrived slander that does not exist--I have never know anyone to run the other direction from homosexuals). People's sexual journey is exactly that, a journey, and any part of that need not be legislated by Government.

People should be taught AT HOME, that some are different, sexually, and to respect those some. Learning that at school can be a confusing process.

If you consider the amount of functional illiterates "graduating" from B.C. public schools, you'd think the stinking, most militant BCTF and the Government would get it together.

I'd rather hear about kids learning why little Johnny has something called "cancer" or what "autistic" means.

Try pushing this other sexo-educational crap in Alberta, and find out how soon you'd be shipped out from Lethbridge by truck, and for good cause.

That's another reason why they're number one, and we pretend that we are.

A.G.Tskmis writes, "...and find out how soon you'd be shipped out from Lethbridge by truck, and for good cause....That's another reason why they're number one, and we pretend that we are."

Eugene Parks responds: Do threats of vigilatianizm makes Alberta number one?

Staying on topic for this thread - for once :-) ...

Might Alberta's economic status be the result of tar sands being exploited without any meaningful environmental management? River levels have dropped dramatically potentially destroying millions of acres much the same as the USSR damaged the Aral Sea and region... what of the huge slug ponds sitting at risk... where is Ambrose on those issues? Is rhetorical support from new staffers going to help address very real environmental issues? Is the denial of science a foundation for good environmental management?

"Eugene Parks responds:

Staying on topic for this thread - for once :-) ..."

Actually, as the title states Mr. Right is the topic of this thread, not all the other little anti-CPC chips on your shoulder.

I'll spell it out. In the environment minister Amborse's office we have:

1. people who believe the earth is 8,000 years old

2. people who believe the solution for the earth is cutting and running

3. people who are turning to "irregular" science to solve major issues

4. people who deny science and are now in charge of the country's environmental management.

General attacks on religion are off the mark. All branches of Christianity, for example, are fully supportive of scientific thought and solutions. The above is about something very "irregular" and potentially very "dangerous" - not in either Canada's interest or in the interest of the honourable reputation of major faiths.

Messrs Budd and Parks
I remain "observant" as they say in the U.S. and "churchgoing" as i think we say here, though not as often as I'd like and with real ambivalence when i join my family at the church i was raised in.

The rapture is not creed in any of the mainstream Christian religions in Canada, but seems to figure in at least the personal creeed of the kinds of people Parks talks about in assocation with so-called "family" and "parent" coalitions. Though I don't think we can be too smug about my other point; the idea that a supreme being threw us the keys to this place, called it our dominion, and is okay with us treating it like only our needs count does run like a thread even through the mainstream

I'm obviously not for damning religion and I think the NDP fails to leave a lot of space in the Party for people of faith at its own peril, and in denial of some of the best aspects of its history (the social gospel Christianity that i feel closest to - ahh there's the rub)

I'm also against damning or mocking politicians, solely because they hold particular beliefs. (as, for example, Warren Kinsella - who says he's Catholic and has had the benefit of at least a year or so of Jesuit instruction did to Stockwell Day i.e. "thinks Flintstones is a documentary" - very cute, but shameful, in my mind) As a politician, Day's belief on the age of the earth is immaterial to me and is not a proper point of condemnation or derision. If he says he is seeking or using elected office to help ensure that the state and society reflects his particular beliefs about what are universal truths revealed to him by a supreme being - then I have a problem.

Eugene Parks responds: To be theological for a moment, "dominion" is a translation and is generally accepted to mean "stewardship" or to be responsible with and for. The "do whatever you want" idea is not philosophy derivable from Christian theology... but is a perversion often used as rationalization for usury.... in contrast to "responsible management" or to have dominion.

Heaney writes: "I'm obviously not for damning religion and I think the NDP fails to leave a lot of space in the Party for people of faith at its own peril, and in denial of some of the best aspects of its history (the social gospel Christianity that i feel closest to - ahh there's the rub)"

Eugene Parks responds: Christianity has a right and a left - as you correctly are alluding to. I would add that the Christian-right has historically been about struggling with the issues of justice and civil management.

-> In my educated opinion, the real Christian-Right is about "Responsible Management" and the true Christian-Left is about "Love your neighbour" - combined forming the Christian view of society. The so-called Christian-Right as seen in the US - and now in Canada - seems to emphasize power and authoritarian perspectives - which I believe is a perversion of the Christian perspective of "responsible management".

Heaney writes: "I'm also against damning or mocking politicians, solely because they hold particular beliefs. "

Eugene Parks responds, the balance between respecting but also holding to account is difficult, particularly in matters such as religion when there are problems to be addressed.

Heaney writes: "As a politician, Day's belief on the age of the earth is immaterial to me and is not a proper point of condemnation or derision. If he says he is seeking or using elected office to help ensure that the state and society reflects his particular beliefs about what are universal truths revealed to him by a supreme being - then I have a problem."

Eugene Parks: Day's scientific views are irrelevant to the extend that scientific perspectives/thinking and decisions are not part of his job (but when is hypothesis and verification ever abscent?/?). In Ambrose's case (the topic of this thread), her team's scientific perspectives are highly relevant as her portfolio is principally scientific... or as I'm arguing, should be scientifically based. The denial of science and use of "irregular" science is disturbing to me as it directly her enviromenbt minstry's "use" of science directly affects the country.

The denial of science and use of "irregular" science is disturbing to me as Ambrose's office "use" of science directly affects the country.

Eugene Parks responds: To be theological for a moment, "dominion" is a translation and is generally accepted to mean "stewardship" or to be responsible with and for. The "do whatever you want" idea is not philosophy derivable from Christian theology... but is a perversion often used as rationalization for usury.... in contrast to "responsible management" or to have dominion."

Writing another "thesis" again Eugene?

"Eugene Parks responds: Christianity has a right and a left - as you correctly are alluding to. I would add that the Christian-right has historically been about struggling with the issues of justice and civil management.

Correct but many fail to see the aspect that modern society does not want to adhere to their
resolution of issues and few on the Christian Right want any comprimise.

"In my educated opinion, the real Christian-Right is about "Responsible Management" and the true Christian-Left is about "Love your neighbour" - combined forming the Christian view of society. "

Some may disagree. "The Christian Right" is thought more of being more evangelical while
the "left" is considered to be moderate. For example those who are "Liberals" tend to favour
less religious intervention in government and politics than those who would be considered to be
"Christian Conservatives"

Another way is simple. There are moderate Catholics and Evangelical Catholics. VanderZalm
could be considered to be an Evangelical Catholic since himself said he was a devout Catholic.

The same exists in the Protestant aspect, since
there are moderate or liberal Protestant elements
such as the United Church and more conservative
elements such as the fundamentalist elements.

The so-called Christian-Right as seen in the US - and now in Canada - seems to emphasize power and authoritarian perspectives - which I believe is a perversion of the Christian perspective of "responsible management".

It also goes against much of the basic teachings
since there is a mandra of "love thy neighbour"
and to "forgive those who tresspass against us".

Heaney writes: "I'm also against damning or mocking politicians, solely because they hold particular beliefs. "

Eugene Parks responds, the balance between respecting but also holding to account is difficult, particularly in matters such as religion when there are problems to be addressed.

One's religous view is not applicable to politician's working for the betterment of the country and should be left alone

Heaney writes: "As a politician, Day's belief on the age of the earth is immaterial to me and is not a proper point of condemnation or derision. If he says he is seeking or using elected office to help ensure that the state and society reflects his particular beliefs about what are universal truths revealed to him by a supreme being - then I have a problem."

True. this is the mandra of most Christian fundamentalists when they get into the political system.

One has to wonder why there's such a huge movement of Christian Right followers in the United States, yet there are very few by comparison in Israel, the birthplace of Christianity.

The fundamentalist Christian movement is not much
more than power and influence as witnessed firstly by VanderZalm and his Zalmoid followers and then by the Holy Rolies led by Stockewell Day.

The Conservatives are not inherently fundamentalist and should be detached as far as possible from religous influences.

The fundamentalists and evangelicals do have their own home in the Christian Hertiage Party.

Tom Tory writes: "Some may disagree. "The Christian Right" is thought more of being more evangelical while the "left" is considered to be moderate. For example those who are "Liberals" tend to favour less religious intervention in government and politics than those who would be considered to be "Christian Conservatives"

Eugene Parks responds: Both the Christian-Left ("love your neighbour) and the true Christian-Right ("responsible management") are both interventionist in that both perspectives seek to contribute to society - with an understanding that we are creatures in process still learning and growing. And, both components of the Christian prespective of society have a message of respect that includes allowing others to make their own choices and learn their own lessions without necessarily interferring with.

In contrast, Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (which are not strictly indentical) as they are popularliy understood leave little room for other perspectives or room for others to make their own choices. Neither do they see us, or the world, as a work in progress. They cannot account for the fact we have not been given all truth and we don't have a single set of principles from which to figure everything else out. That is not to say there are not good principles, but we clearly do not have all truth under our control - very very clearly!

In truth, we still have to learn and a lot of growing to do and that is something the "love your neighbour" and "responsible management" persepctive (singular) can account for but fundamentalism cannot.

A.G. writes that reference to homosexuality "...doesn't belong in a classroom at such a fragile age" and that "...kids need not be bashed over the head with all this sexual dogma about "homophobia" (a contrived slander that does not exist..."

FYI, A.G., "You're so gay!" or "That's so gay!" is one of the commonest schoolyard taunts (and not just in schoolyards, but in Internet chat rooms, text messaging, etc). I've heard it from Grade 4 kids who'd never dream of using racial slurs or "bad words", from Catholic school kids and from kids who probably don't even understand what it means. And I've heard a Grade 5 student casually discuss their own "homosexuality" with classmates on a field trip.

So yes, homophobia does very much exist in our schools, like elsewhere, and yes, homosexuality does confront our kids, whether parents like it or not, even at the most "fragile" age.

And even if it weren't happening at school, most of our kids would inevitably encounter one of our own adult friends or relatives who comes with a same-sex partner at some point. Merely acknowledging that some adults have same-sex partners (just as the elementary curriculum acknowledges different cultures and religions) is simply stating the obvious and hardly the sort of lurid discussion that you and others are imagining and getting all hysterical about.

I doubt that even atheist parents panic when the Grade 4 Social Studies text discusses Christian and First Nations creation myths. It's as bland and age-appropriate as you could ask for and I can't imagine for a moment that Education Minister Christensen would approve any discussion of homosexuality that's any less so.

When someone tells you they feel imbued with the Holy Spirit and moved to live the life Jesus would have me live ....

You say right on! Yes?

Or their Muslim faith was part of an urging to public life - there are crazier motivations than faith, no? Any faith.

It’s not the same when people say they know how God would have us run things. That it's high time his will be done and they’re clued into the masterplan.

That’s ..umm.. Taliban.

Yes, Heaney, that's it right there and that's why we separated Church and state (and school... and science). Too many competing Gods with too many competing visions--a guaranteed recipe for carnage!