Ecumenicism.  Churches rarely criticize churches.  They recognize atheism as a threat, but hate-filled Christians are ignored.

At my Baptist church we are being encouraged to oppose Bill 13 and support Bill 14.

Here's a link to a document called "Bill 13: Accepting Schools Act: Community Information Package" put together by some who are opposing the bill...

http://www.flambc.org/downloads/sb_flamborough/Bill13CommunityBulletin.pdf

Rich blessings.

Hi Jobam,

Probably still boggling at the sheer stupidity of the argument.

Quite frankly anyone so stupid as to think this is a legitimate argument deserves to be sitting in school listening to a remedial logic course rather than gassing on about what schools should be teaching.

And anyone listening to that argument and nodding in agreement is thicker than a post.

Still, they have the freedom of speech to stand right up and show those listening what great fools they are.  Had they kept their mouths shut they could have passed as half-ways intelligent.  Proverbs 17:  28

Grace and peace to you.

John

What are the particulars about bill 13 vs. bill 14?

These sorts of stories make me feel angry! Bullies showing up at an anti-bullying committee.

Kimmio, I love your INFPness.

Rich blessings.

Kimmio - as a fellow non-Ontarian, I was wondering the same thing.

Jobam - given that this is a provincial issue instead of a national one, I wonder if it would be better to have response coming from the conference level - perhaps a joint press release from the heads of each conference within Ontario? 

HI Somegalfromcan...I agree to some point - but you are assuming that the conference's talk to each other - but on a more important note, I am thinking that my M&S support should be available to any province for a just cause/need/ministry. If not, I would certainly re-evaluate my M&S givings….but I know that M&S does give to local ministries and does get involved in local issues from time to time.  The UCC makes statements on our behalf on national and international issues – there is no reason one couldn’t be given here….

As to Revjohn – I agree that argument is stupid – but by national not making a statement and or not having a face there it’s like we don’t care….and how is this perceived by a community we want to welcome….by kids and staff that are being bullied.

According to one article in the latest Observer, we are a thinking church – what good is that if no action is involved…sounds like are moving towards a church of laziness…..

Just my two cents….

I'm not sure just which courts of the UCC should address these issues.  I would suggest all three.  I'm seeing a picture of National and Conferences supporting local pastoral charges as their clergy and lay leadership, and members show up in numbers to counter the rediculous claims being made against this bill. 

I note that one UCC clergy person, who is also a MP (NDP) did speak out claiming the views of a very vocal minority did not represent all Christians.

Originally posted at 8:06am...

seeler and all, Please take a look at the document I linked to. Which of the claims, if any, presented there do you see as ridiculous?

Rich blessings.

9:26am... still awaiting a response...

Actually MC Jae ... what I see in that document is fear of having children actually exposed to the real world.

If parents and churches were doing the job that they claim as theirs then there would be less need for such a bill.   Also, there will always be those that would never be adequately instructed at home or in church anyways.

I feel that school is a very good place for exposing children to diversity and teaching and promoting a healthy form of tolerance for others that happen to be different than you.    The notion that promoting awareness and understanding is somehow indocrination into something I find rather perplexing and it smells of fearmongering.

Ignorance and condoned intolerance is fertile soil for bullying.   Four specific groups were especially identified to make it quite clear to the victims that they would be protected and to the bullies that they would have nothing to hide behind because the rules were to vague.

I hope there are further bills that come aong to address other groups and concerns.

Whatever it takes to give bullies no place to hide and no leeway to practice their craft.

Regards

Rita

Yes, Rita, I thought that might be your position and thank you for presenting it. What I would really appreciate is actual feedback on the document, using quotes from it and responses.

Would it not be better to just start with legislation that deals with bullying in general? I believe that's what Bill 14 is all about.

Agreed.

Rich blessings.

Jae, I looked at the document and to me it's seriously lacking in information.  If I were to just get my information from that, I would be confused about what Bill 13 is about, as it refers to things that are not covered by Bill 13.

I do find this statement odd:

Schools must form clubs that promote 

gender equity; anti-racism; raise awareness for people 

with disabilities and gay-straight alliances.  

Jae, I looked at bill 13 and it doesn't say that schools must form clubs.  Your pamphlet is providing misinformation.

This is what bill 13 says:

 Every board shall support pupils who want to establish and lead,

  (a)  activities or organizations that promote gender equity;

  (b)  activities or organizations that promote anti-racism;

   (c)  activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people with disabilities; or

  (d)  activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including organizations with the name gay-straight alliance or another name.

So if a student wants to start a group about one of the above, they must get the support of the school.  The 2 are very different.  I see nothing about sex ed in the bill, and find it odd that the pamphlet keeps refers to that.

This is near the beginning of the bill:

Believe that all students should feel safe at school and deserve a positive school climate that is inclusive and accepting, regardless of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability;

I do find it odd that religion is not included, but maybe that was intentionally left out as Catholic schools do not have to accept students who are not Catholic/have parents who are Catholic (or at least that's how they operate here).

Hm... okay, chemgal, fair enough. I'll see if I can dig something better up. 

(Edited to include: Here is something from the Campaign Life Coalition: http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Anti-bullying_Bill_13 )

I've never heard of a school having to have a certain club or kind of club either. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

As for your question about how children who hold traditional values will be discriminated against, the argument that I've heard put forward is that they will be looked down upon, and perhaps even bullied, because they will not be accepting of the clubs. Also the legislation does nothing to protect children from faith-based bullying. Nor does it do anything to protect children from the most common type of bullying -- that based on physical appearance.

Actually, the two types of club I've mainly heard argued against are the gender equity club, and the gay-straight alliance.

Now me, personally, I believe there should be anti-bullying legislation brought in that seeks to protect every child from bullying.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

Hi MC jae,

Ridiculousness, as beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.  My critique of the document you provide the link to is as follows:

Any tax-payer funded classroom has already been politicized on the grounds that it is already receiving funding that comes from the tax-payer and is collected by the government.  The argument against politicizing fails on this ground.  If the argument were to prevent further politicizing then it would be a valid argument.

The issue of "controversial sexual topics" is itself a politicization of social discussion and rests on an unproven claim that a) everyone would find the sexual topics "controversial" and b) there is nothing already in the curriculum which is a source of some controversy (ie., evolutionary theory in science class).  Granted the politicization of the appeal to controversy is not funded by the tax-payer the opportunity for poliiticized interest groups to protest as hearings is paid for by the tax-payer.

The issue of "against their parent's will" is one which is esily addressed.  The Province of Ontario has the right to set curriculum goals under the auspices of the Ontario Education Act.  Parents unhappy with any set of curriculum goals can a) invite a Member of the Provincial Parliament to present an amendment to the Ontario Education Act which changes curriculum goals or provides exemptions to curriculum goals based upon request from parents.

It is well worth noting that the Ontario Education Act defines education in the following way:

If it can be proven that Bill 13 The Accepting Schools Act violates that definition then opposition to the Bill should be based on its impact upon the quality of education or the weakening of opposition rather that politicized fabrications of "controversy" and "contrary to parent's wishes."

This point is, very well put and is a very strong argument which does lift up the foundations of effective policy.

It is of course put forward by a special interest group with a narrow political agenda and so their opposition to policy does not automatically render proposed policy ineffective.

Which means that the actual content of the proposed legislation needs to be addressed and not the political spin of those who have taken pro or con positions to the Bill.

Nothing wrong with this paragraph other than it would appear one of the "needs" is that parents not have children exposed to "controversial sexual topics against their parents will" and at this point that appears to be the primary need that the Community Information Package identifies.

This is twice that this allegation has been made now in such a small document.  I hope they get around to doing something more than make allegations.  Some proof of the "controversy" would be nice.  Let's name the controversy and get it out in the open.  Some proof of the serious implications would also be welcome.

An accurate though misleading statement.  The outcry was indeed fierce.  It was by no means widespread.  Meaning that opposition to the proposed legislation was politicized and contained to a narrow political agenda.  Which does not prove that the proposed curriculum change did not represent effective policy.

These are serious allegations which need to be addressed.

If the legislation does not, as a matter of fact, address bullying across a broad spectrum it represents incomplete legislation at best and careless legislation at worst.  Amendments to the Bill would be warranted to address those deficiencies.

The allegation of discrimination needs to be proven as well.  Otherwise it is spurious comment.

This is a misleading statement.  By opening with the praise for "very inclusive language" the quick impression is formed that proponents to the Bill are supportive of inclusive measure.

The unfortunate use of the contraction "but" rather than the contraction "and" signals that the initial praise of inclusiveness is nothing but a ruse.  If inclusion is the goal special treatment for any sub-category must be made on the grounds that the sub-category is not applicable.  That argument is not made here.  Instead the notion of inclusion is attacked by criticizing sub-categories for getting special attention.

While the question is legitimate it does not address whether or not these 4 issues are adequately addressed  without recourse to the formation of clubs or additions to curriculum.

While the Information Package does refer to a survey done by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health which gives a 29% victimization rate for bullying they do not include numbers, if they are accessible which may indicate why the victim was targetted to be bullied.

If it could be proven that of all the students who experienced bullying in school that a full 80% (picked at random) were targetted by others for bullying because they are racially different or were accused of being racially different would groups promoting racial tolerance still be seen as being out of place?

The idea of groups proposed by the legislation also points to voluntary membership outside of the academic instruction time so there is no grounds to allege that such groups detract from the educational process of the classroom.

While the legislation may target proposals at sub-groups proven to be targetted for violence does it actually prevent or restrict the formation of support groups for sub-groups not identified by the legislation?

More subtle slight of hand.

Remember the fierce outcry?

Now it is parents and groups around the province.  Note that figures are not included.  That typically is the tell-tale sign that while there may have been concerns expressed by parents and groups around the Province those concerns were not shared by many parents or groups around the Province.

It isn't an un-truth.  It is definitely misleading.  And it is deliberately so.

The allegation of a less direct route is a political statement which is false.  There is only one route to introduce law int he Province of Ontario and the Community Information Package has already laid out the proces a Bill must take to become a law, as well as, a checklist showing where the Bill stands in the lawmaking process.

Deception is astatement of false-witness.

The Community Information Package reprints section 3.1 of the proposed bill and asks:

Asking and answering one's own question is a wonderful rhetorical device and in the context that they have set I am hard-pressed to see how the exercise advances their opposition.

Unless the intend to suggest that Bill 13, upon becoming law, becomes a direct violation of religious expression granted under the Federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Admittedly I am not a lawyer specializing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  I am not convinced that anything proposed under Bill 13 (which would impact upon the Ontario Education Act) violates the Charter

Apart from raising the spectre of reverse discrimination (which is patently ridiculous) the document appears to be a reasonably well thought out document.  It has certain flaws in its logic (or at the very least it contains what I believe are flaws in its logic).

One thing the document does, which I appreciate, is list the names of the organizations which comprise or contribute to the Educational Advocacy Consortium.  Each of those organizations will have a list of beliefs which guide them in addressing the topic of education.

You can't get much more politicized than the Christian Heritage Party which makes all of the fears of politicizing the school baseless.  The real issue is how the school is politicized not that it is or is being politicized.  The Ontario Alliance for Christian Schools would be very closely connected to the CHP ideologically.  I have never heard of the Association for Reformed Political Action (The brochure made a mistake) until you shared this document.  I'm betting that they are not very different from the CHP or the OACS.

Theologically I have a lot of sympathy for my Reformed brothers and sisters.  It is an interesting factoid of history that the Reformers of Holland have given birth to a government that is perhaps one of the most "progressive" in the European Union as well as, one of the most repressive governments in recent memory (South Africa).

Which makes me increasingly worried about handing the CHP anything resembling legislative authority.

The tone taken by the document is manipulative and constitutes fear-mongering.

Grace and peace ot you.

John

Hi MC jae,

I'm currently looking at Bill 13.  As it is not a stand alone Bill but one that proposes many changes to the Ontario Education Act it might take some time.

I think that the allegation of certain clubs having to be formed is a deliberate misleading being done by the opponents of the Bill.

The issue is probably closer to forbidding the fomation of certain clubs as has been the case in the Separate School Board refusing to allow students to form Gay-Straight alliance clubs.

If I find anything I'll report back.

Grace and peace to you.

John

MC jae and chemgal,

I believe this is the piece of the Bill which is being interpretted as must form groups:

The amendment clearly forces no indiviudal school or board to form groups.  It does prohibit individual schools or boards from interfering with students wishing to form such groups.

Odd that the opponents would misrepresent Bill 13 like that.  One is tempted to say that they were lying.  Perhaps they were just being really dense, or ignorant.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Jae - I have a few other things to do than spend all my time on this thread, so I hope that your timing my response is not meant as criticism. 

My post was in response to the opening post, and not to the article from your denomination.  I've read your post, including part of the document.  I understand that it is your denomination's response to Bill 13.   I am suggesting that the UCC, local churches and national, also voice their opinion.

I'd like to respond to this reasonably, but there's a time and place for everything.

I really don't understand the leap — no, plunge — into conceit and spite that it must take to get from the teachings of Jesus to the inspiration for this sort of poliitical imbecility.

The smug, ravening, hypocisy-fuelled bigotry and malicious ignorance that embarks brainwashed zealots on these idiotic crusades against anything that gets up their hypersensensitively self-righteous noses goes a long way towards keeping countless good people and healthy faith lives apart. It's why so many reasonable, fair-minded, intelligent, decent folk see religion as an ugly blight on society.

Thank you for that research and quote revjohn.

I don't see any forcing going on either. It just  sounds to me like if the students want such clubs, then the school is obliged to support them in them. Forced clubs wouldn't make much sense anyway. Who wants to be in a forced club.

The question remains as to why the opponents of the Bill would state what seems to be an obvious untruth. I would like to say that it is not a matter of lying. Since they are evangelicals like myself I would like to find some way to defend them. Perhaps they merely misread the legislation.*

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

*Course, it's hard to imagine them doing that since there are so many groups represented there. Surely someone read it correctly, so...?

Did you find anything that says that churches who want to rent space from schools must sign a paper saying they are in agreement with Bill 13's policies?

[quote=seeler]

My post was in response to the opening post, and not to the article from your denomination. I've read your post, including part of the document. I understand that it is your denomination's response to Bill 13. I am suggesting that the UCC, local churches and national, also voice their opinion.

Seeler - the last line above is my whole point......UCC, local churches and national, also vocie their opinion....

I am rather suprised the Toronoto Conference has no voice - or at least one we are not hearing.....they have the largest Queer commuintiy - however, they don't represent the rural areas.....why is Toronoto so quiet???  Conference's rarely do anthing on their own.....

There are 70 public shool boards in Ontario - and trust me, they are all different. Legistaltion would help.....

Update:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Ontario_PC_MPP_throws_support_behind_GSAs-11959.aspx

That's the nicest thing you've ever said about me.  Thanks.

Maybe because most UCCa courts would respond to soemthning like this after a motion passed at a meeting of the court and it has not been brought up at such a meeting?

In the case of Toronto Conference in particular it may have to do with how they are now structured, whereby most of the work is now done by Presbyteiries and there are few Conference committtees.

Jobam, are those comments for me? Neither of the documents that I have linked to are from my denomination.

As for the UCCanada having a voice in the discussion, absolutely, I think that's wonderful. The more voices the better. That's part of what democracy is all about.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

So, the Catholics and other asshat denominations who want to prevent students from forming GSAs have issued materials and gone to Queen's Park to promote their position, but the UCCan hasn't said a word because the Presbyteries are waiting for a Conference committee to address it?

Meanwhile, every other denomination has had their say in the media, and no one knows what the UCC thinks about a subject that is very important to many Ontario students.

At least the UCC has taken a position on Israel, who must be extremely concerned about what a relatively small bunch of Christian Canadians think.

I think you guys have your priorities on backward.  This is one of those shining opportunities to put Christianity in a good light for once, and you're blowing it.

In the UCCan it depends on a group of people choosing to get involved.  AT any level.  Am I surprised that no group has done so, at least at a congregational level?  Somewhat.  But unless a group of concerned people get together nothing happen in the UCCan.  So those of you in Ontario who think that the church should be involved...start getting the church involved.

One of the things that I like about being a member of a denomination with a congregational style of government chansen is that it allows our churches to move quickly when important issues like this one arise. You'll notice that we Baptists have already made our views known. You can find our position on this issue stated on many of our churches' websites.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

Yeah, c'mon you United Church people, time is a waisting.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

The Centre for Inquiry, a relatively small group of atheists, have come out in favour of GSAs and against the Catholic Church:

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/gay-straight-alliances-must-be-s...

Of course, nobody cares, because it's a small group.  The United Church, however, could generate more volume than a small bunch of atheists.  But of course, I doubt very much that the entire UCCan would be for GSAs.  It might be as close as 50-50 for and against GSAs.  You are still a bunch of Christians, after all, and there is plenty of distrust for gay people among your ranks.

That's something else I tend to forget - it seems it's primarily the more progressive UCCan members who post here.

So kids will get taught mutual masturbation and vaginal lubrication when they are ten years old, and anal and oral sex when they're twelve.

At what age will they get taught things like love, caring, compassion, romance, faithfulness, and fidelity?

Will post more later.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

MC Jae ..... where is that specifically in Bill 13???

Is that not another issue and bill altogether???

Rita

Sadly Rita I don't that's in any bill at all. My greatest concern is that kids will get taught the mechanics of sex, the plumbing if you will, without being taught the values that should accompany it. What about the children. What kind of generation will we as a society raise. What kind of adults will they be. Value-less sexbots who know how to make each other feel good but who don't the real reasons why they should. Weep for the children Rita. Weep.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae 

lol - "Value-less sexbots"

They're going to find out the mechanics with or without the school system - generally from their friends or the Internet.  What sex ed does is give kids the knowledge to be safe about it.  It's the responsible thing to do.

Hi chansen,

That is a bit of a misunderstanding.

Because of the concilliar nature of our denomination we do not vest a great deal of authority into any one person.  The Minister, for example, does not have executive power to make decisions for a congregation.  Any decision made at a congregational level is made by the congregation, their board or the executive of the board.

So, while I have recently been interviewed by radio and the newspapers I can only speak to what has been done or what is being done by the congregaiton.  I do not have the authority to say "we will do this" and have the congregation do as I have said.

The same holds true for every higher council.  Presbytery has a Chair, the Chair does not have executive authority to decide on Presbytery's behalf.  Conference has a President, the President does not have executive authority to decide on Conference's behalf.

We have deliberately structured our governance in that way so that we never have dictatorial rule.  This makes us much slower off the ball than other denominations which do favour dictatorial rule.

That said, congregations. Presbyteries, Conferences and or General Council itself aware of future hearings before the Standing Committee on Social Policy in the Ottawa area set for May 22, 2012 can contact the Clerk of the Committee (Katch Koch at 416-325-3526 or Katch_Koch@ontla.ola.org) and request on of the limited number of public delegation spots.

Each spot will be given 15 minutes of presentation time though I suspect that can be decreased by the Chair of the Committee.

What does that mean for the UCCAN or any portion thereof?  It means, according to our polity that the appropriate council has to call a meeting, at least 2 Sundays notice, move and second a motion to participate, have the motion carried and oops we made the decision on May 21 at the earliest (starting the process now) and are not able to get one of the public delegation spots.

At this point the hopes of those appearing before the Standing Committee on Social Policy are hoping to get the Bill moved to the Legislative Committee as it is only there that the Bill can now be ammended.  It has already passed the first and second reading, next stop in the process is the third reading and ammendments cannot be made to the Bill at the thrid reading.

So, the best possible way to participate, at this point in time, would be to have Congregations, Presbyteries, Conferences in Ontario consider motions to send delegations.  General Council Executive could also consider putting a motion in place to send a delegation to any hearing of Bill 13 before the Legislative Committee.  Which is not guaranteed to hear any deputations speaking for or against Bill 13.

Well, yes and no.

You ask anyone from the asshat denominations which way we lean and they'll tell you.

NDP MPP Cherie DiNovo is currently sitting on the Standing Committee on Social Policy.  I would be genuinely surprised if anyone from any delegation appearing before the Standing Committee on Social Policy was ignorant of DiNovo's denominational home or her ideological stance.

The general public very well might have forgotten.  If they have, don't worry it will come up again.

The United Church of Canada currently has a position on Israel.  The press coverage slamming a proposal put forward by the United Church's working committee on Israel/Palestine is not a position.  At best it is a suggested position and odds are strong that the proposition we read about in the papers is significantly reworked before General Council, or one of the Commissions does anything with it.

I was in Kelowna in 2009 we faced the same kind of proposals with much more incendiary background language and in the end we gutted each proposal and drafted a new motion.

Those longer in the tooth than I am will attest to the fact that proposals and petitions regarding Palestine and Israel routinely go to General Council and to date all that have called for boycotts have failed.

Have to agree with you to some degree on that assessment.  Bill 13 and the discussions surrounding it is an area which falls right into the confluence of our spheres of concern and influence.  Whereas Israel/Palestine is slightly out of reach of our sphere of influence.

That said, until it was reported that some complete tool compared Bill 13 to slavery I was unaware of the hearings before the Standing Committee on Social Policy.  Being somewhat distracted by a significant congregational vote I hadn't been paying to much attention to the jawing back and forth between Bill 13 and Bill 14.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi MC jae,

This is a bit of a murky area I'm afraid.  The language being used is deliberately (I believe) misleading.

The claim is that they will be taught how to do this or that sexual act.  I'm not sure that is the case.  Admittedly I am way past my health classes which were taught in grade 9 and basically said, "hormones do things and make you feel things.  That is normal it happens to everybody.  Some got a head start and others are slow our of the blocks."

We were tested on our ability to correctly label drawings of the male and female reproductive organs.  We were reminded that the hormones would make us stink and we should wash more thoroughly, more often, especially after gymn class.

We were never taught "how" to do anything.  We were rather quickly told the mechanics and that was pretty much that.

I do remember even then there was opposition to that level of education on the grounds that we hormonal youths, now knowing the mechanics would start satisfying our carnal needs.

I'm pretty sure that was happening long before we got to the health section of gym class even if you disregarded 99% of the Monday morning bragging that was going on in class.

Improvements to that curriculum, such as discussing birth control (also heavily opposed on the grounds that it made young women more sexually aggressive) have not proven to be disasterous.

If their parents value such things they will be modelled from birth and be the foundation that every publicly funded school gets to start their sex education from.

As a parent I can remember when our kids started asking where do babies come from, and it was before they started going to pre-school.  So we told them.  Nothing to be embarrased about.

When they asked, "what does gay mean?"  We told them.  Again, nothing to be embarrassed about.

As they asked more and more questions we provided more and more answers.  Eventually, the girls felt more comfortable talking to their mom about stuff.  My job is to intimidate the boyfriends.  The running joke is when the boyfriend does come over and I announce that I am going out to sharpen my axe.  I don't own an axe.

Explaining things to our Son, when he has questions, is my job.  Though with his PDD-NOS girls are not a priority.  And they have tried to get his attention.  It was very amusing.

My Son knows what our expectations are of him in relationships.  When he is ready to have one he knows how to respect whomever he chooses a relationship with.

Anecdotally, I have found that the ones who squawk most about sex-education being the responsibility of the parent are those who are most squeemish about providing it.  They tend to leave the talk too late and they tend only to emphasize only those points of the talk that they are most comfortable with.

This is socially problematic in that if your kids come to you looking for help and you hide information from them or they sense you are hiding information from them then you have just sunk the trust boat and they will not be coming to you for advice any time soon.

The parents up in arms about GSA's being formed at Separate Schools think that they are taking on a "liberal" government with an anti-catholic bent.  They couldn't be more wrong.  They are attacking their own children because it is the kids demanding these groups and it is parents and educator and school boards telling them no.

Can't imagine what "the talk" looks like in the homes of those educators and administrators and those parents sounds like.  Other than dad's telling daughters to keep their legs shut and labelling the daughters of other dad's sluts because they don't keep their legs shut around their sons.  That, unfortunately, is a tradition that continues to be passed from generation to generation.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Let's get real

Some people do not want anyone OF ANY AGE taught homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, masturbation, mutual masturbation, pre-martial intercourse, oral sex, anal sex.... is ok. It is according to teach because it is wrong to do, PERIOD, even as ADULTS.

That is honest.

I will be honest and say that even though Flamborough Baptist Church ran a LOST series (about being LOST in detrimental activities and being led down the right path) in which on Jan 31 Bill Thorton spoke on Homosexuality and provides misleading information about speaking about homosexuality and about Bill C250 I can see some growth in the direction toward love and compassion even though he still wants homosexuals to confess, repent, remain celibate and wants parents to contact Exodus.

You can read or listen here
http://www.flambc.org/qry/page.taf?id=17&_nc=b6e2685eef4c1a99736e2cf34f1dd36f

Hi SG,

That, I believe is the genesis of all opposition to Bill 13.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi MC - actually the quote/reply option got screwed up on me...I was taking the quote that seeler used that she was responding to you and I only wanted the UCC - Toronto response....sorry about the confusion.

MC Jae ..... I will weep for the children if they are denied the opportunity to learn about sexual issues in a professional and safe environment.    It about time that someone does it and does it right and makes sure the lessons are there for all children.

The thought that this will turn them into mindless sexbots or whatever is in my opinion the classic lets swerve from this ditch into the other.   Given that sort of reasoning then we should not allow people to become hockey coaches because it will turn them into child molesters.   Dare I say similar agruments could be made about other vocations such as the one you are contemplating.   Such is foolishness and excess of course.

A far better and far more useful thing would be a very candid and mature dialogue on exactly how we are going to present these topics and to what depth and in what context.   To run from such a conversation and refuse to talk about it makes me suspicious that those topics will receive the same avoidance in those homes and churches.

I have grandchildren that are extremely precious to me.    I sincerely hope they grow up hearing all of this in school.   Lord knows how I could have benefitted from such when I was young and having the feelings about gender that I had and no information and no one to talk to.    This I will tell you .... you feel so alone .... and you need to hide.    No wonder the suicide rates for those of us that are "different" is so high.

It is time to bring it all into the light and as a Christian .... I am all for it....

Sincerely

Rita

Well this is pure speculation on my part, but perhaps the reason is that, unlike homosexuality, there doesn't appear to be a lot of sermons being preached out there referring to ugly people as being abominations against God?

Is there any significant group of "true" Christians out there embarking on a crusade of falsewitness and hatemongering against Ugly people? We know that there are certainly a lot doing so against homosexuals, of course they don't refer to it as hatemongering, perfering to call it "truth" or "God's Word" or my favorite, "love the sinner but hate the sin".

Pretty much every person killed or maimed because they were homosexual were killed or maimed in God's name, as a result of the thinly veiled hatred taught by religious leaders.

That in itself would tend to make me think that such groups, having suffered so horribly at the "loving" hands of "true" Christians, might be worth a special mention or two?

Ya think?

All of the presenters are extremists who have been denounced, by their own groups or are seen as outside their own denominations.  The Jewish guy belongs to really small Orthodox sect that is seen as being outside orthodoxy. .  McVety, the main leaders who speaks for "Christians" was kicked off CTS for essentially saying the same things. 

That is what Cheri DeNova was pointing out.

Cheri DeNova made a similar point at a conference I atteneded. When it came to issues like housing , she would hear from the Catholic Church and other religious groups, but nevr her own church.

Because of the current process, By the time the UCC come up with a position on an issue it is long gone and dealt with.

We need some sort of process/body that enables the UCC to have representatives speak to various issues provincially.

All lessons of any kind should be taught in a professional and safe environment.

Rita, my friend, I'm just advocating that the kids get some teaching about values such as love, compassion, tenderness, and faithfulness.

The topics aren't avoided. Conservative parents and Conservative Christian leaders have no problem sharing their opinion on how evil it all is. Not many will admit to it being their own personal opinion.

I would expect that you are also extremely precious to them.

I can relate to feeling different. I was very awkward and shy in high school. As a result I was a total loner. No one wanted to be my friend and, because of my shyness, I didn't honestly make much of an effort to reach out to others. On top of that, it was when I hit puberty in high school that I first began having my epileptic seizures so, yeah, I felt different too. That's my major reason for wanting all kids to be helped.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

9.  The Act is amended by adding the following section:

Board support for certain pupil activities and organizations

   303.1  Every board shall support pupils who want to establish and lead,

  (a)  activities or organizations that promote gender equity;

  (b)  activities or organizations that promote anti-racism;

   (c)  activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people with disabilities; or

  (d)  activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including organizations with the name gay-straight alliance or another name.

[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong here...but it looks like the wording actually gives schools a way out of having to support activities or organizations which support people of all sexual orientations, gender identities, including gay-straight alliance-- because between item (c) and item (d) there is an "or", not an "and". So, it looks like that means if the school is supporting students to particpate in all of (a), (b), and (c) , then they could be exempt from being required to particpate in (d).. Maybe that means that the decisions to support these activities/ organizations can be adjudicated as they come up. So, the law doesn't altogether exclude the possibility of groups mentioned in item (d) being allowed, and it also doesn't require they be allowed in all instances if the first three examples are met. So, to me it looks like Bill 13 isn't even as inclusive as it could be, and Bill 14 proponents might just be blowing hot air.

Hi Kimmio,

While the conjunction "or" typically points to a choice between options it is not limited to a choice between options.

I would think that the thrust of this particular amendment is not the list (which may be considered incomplete) but rather, the exhortation of every board supporting pupils who wish to establish and lead groups that might be identified by the descriptions a), b), c) or d).  While the legislation does not lift up the possibility of groups e), f) or g) I would think that the lead on the article represents a possible open door that school boards or administrators may want to think twice about attempting to close.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I changed my mind on that...John I think you're right and I was reading too much into it. It stuck out for me for some reason.

Kimmio, if it read 'and' I think the student would have to be doing something that met all the criteria for them to be supported.

Jae, I think you need to read the bill.  ALL students are being supported (bolding mine):

Believe that all students should feel safe at school and deserve a positive school climate

Jae, is the Campaign Life link serious?  It reminds me of an onion article.