Public Schools Embrace

Debauchery & Apostasy

Over Christmas Music

by

Dr. Frederick Meekins

Fellow Of Worldview Analysis
The Issachar Institute For The Study Of Apologetics & Policy
Most Americans would agree that freedom of conscience ranks
among our most cherished liberties. As such, the state should
protect this particular right by almost any means necessary and
reasonable (especially for citizens).

In California, an initiative has been undertaken to get a ballot

before voters to determine the propriety of Christmas music in
California public schools. Within the measure is a clause that
would require schools to notify parents 21 days before the
specified tunes would be played or performed so that students
can opt out of being exposed to such material.

Those having embraced a rigorous interpretation regarding the

separation of church and state will applaud the measure as a
enlightened compromise as these voices will be among the first
to point out that, in these swinging days of free thought, not
everyone embraces the Christianity espoused by these Yuletide
harmonies. One must ask then would the exponents of the
unsullied conscience be as outspoken in defense of those
wanting to be excused from exposure to more progressivist
causes and material.

Absolutarian relativists claim that, in order to ensure the

scholastic neutrality of the classroom, not even a whiff of
religious material can be permitted to waft across young
impressionable minds. That might be what is claimed in theory,
but the reality falls far short as an exclusionary objectivity is
applied only to Christianity with other worldviews and religions
actually imposed upon students.

Any rational person will admit that, in order to have the most
comprehensive understanding of the world possible, one must
have an understanding of religion as one of history’s most
influential motivating forces. However, there is a point at which
education becomes advocacy.

For example, it has already been stated that even if authorized,

traditional Christmas music will be categorized as quasi-
subversive in nature as one has to admit exposure to these lyrics
could potentially alter the very spiritual identity of those exposed
to them. However, such caution is not exercised in regards to
Islam.

According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled “Islamic studies

required in California district” posted 1/2/02, students there are
required to learn about this prominent world religion. However,
students were not going to be doing this via the traditional social
studies methodology of reading a standard text detached in tone
about the tenets of this system of belief and its impact upon the
world in terms of history, geography, and culture. Rather, the
curriculum required students to live out Islam. This was to be
achieved by having students memorize Koranic verses, praying
in the name of Allah, adopting an Islamic name, and staging a
pretend jihad.

Wonder if the name Nadal Malik Hassan mmmmmm, mmmmm,

mmmmmm is available with students able to pretend to shoot up
an army base. When one takes all this into consideration, the
above lesson plan sort of looses its grade school charm, doesn’t
it?

Mass death brings up yet another disturbing point. According to

Islamic teaching, all one has to do to become a Muslim is to say
with conviction that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is
his prophet.

Parents need to seriously investigate if this is one of the Islamic

phrases being chanted in the public schools where an
accommodationist approach to the study of Islam has been
adopted, and if it has, parents need to be quite insistent as to
having their children removed from the program even if it means
withdrawing from the particular school all together. For you see,
to a sizeable percentage of Muslims around the world, one is
justified in murdering someone that apostasizes or leaves the
faith.

To many, this may seem like theological nitpicking on the scale

of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.
However, should we, with little resistance, be giving these
fanatics another reason with a straight face to kill Americans?
Numerous Muslims will insist that their faith does not condone
the slaughter of innocent people. They just don't tell you that
their definition of innocent is much narrower than ours. Never
has an insincerely or regretfully sung Christmas Carol resulted in
anyone’s death.

The hypertolerant will sneer that this extremism of either

Christians wanting everyone to sing Christmas tunes or Islamists
demanding students recite the Koran and even miss recess as a
simulated form of Ramadan fasting are shortcomings inherent to
the traditional religious mindset irrespective of the belief system
in question. However, the agnostic reprobate can’t resist to
impose their belief on everyone else either.

To both the pagan who sees the natural world as God and the
materialist who believes in nothing beyond the natural world,
there is nothing as important as the reproductive pleasure
cravings we all posses and know as the sex drive. Since it is
claimed that there is no absolute truth in these particular
worldviews, the "is" automatically becomes the "ought" and
however the libidinous impulse manifests itself is acceptable
upon the particular social context. Therefore, those wanting a
world with the fewest taboos possible have a vested interest in
convincing the greatest number possible to this perspective.

And unlike the Christian and even the Muslim for all that matter,
this persuasion is not so much for the benefit of the soul of the
person whose mind the adherents of these respective outlooks
are out to change. Rather those trapped in lives of carnal
destitution are so wracked by personal guilt that they cannot
bear the thought of others disapproving of their individual
predilections. That is why students cannot be permitted to
privately make their own decisions about what we are
continually reminded are private decisions.

When it comes to matters of traditional religious belief, the

secularists believe that children should not be exposed to
theology until they reach maturity. However, when it comes to
conjugal relations, indoctrination is suppose to commence nearly
the first day of kindergarten.

In June 2009, a California school district approved a mandatory

homosexual appreciation curriculum. As part of the curriculum,
five year olds will study a book titled “And Tango Makes Three”
about two “gay” penguins that hatch an egg together. They
name the chick “Tango” because “...it takes two to make a
Tango.”

This propaganda will cause mental damage that will take years
to undue if it can be done so at all. Likely contrary to the mantra
of the illustrated tractate, these were not the two that made
Tango.
Like it or not, a male and a female penguin had to copulate
together in order for little Tango to be brought into existence.
All the two penguins in the story can do is raise him.

Do four and five year olds really need to be exposed to the

intricacies of human relationships and reproduction? Most can
barely tie their own shoes.

The lessons learned about the biological impossibility of a child

having two parents of the same sex and what ought to be a legal
impossibility as well since two unmarried people shackedup
should not be permitted to simultaneously adopt the same child
will not stop in kindergarten. They will be expanded upon from
year to year as the student progresses through the statist school
system.

In the first grade, according to WorldNetDaily, the book “Who

Is A Family” will dupe students into believing that “in our school
and our community there are many different kinds of families
that provide love and care to each other. Remind the students
that all family structures are equally important.”

Do these “equally valid family structures” include

fundamentalist polygamist Mormons? Does this also include
radical Islamist families where the fathers murder their daughters
in so-called “honor killings” for exhibiting such proclivities
towards harlotry such as wanting to pursue higher education and
not wanting to wear burlap bags over their faces? After all, even
if we find these practices abhorrent, it must be reminded they fall
under the rubric of “all” family structures being equally valid.

Technically, a number of the social arrangements being promoted

as such aren’t even families. But Western society has become so
unhinged morally that only the most daring are publicly willing
to enunciate these observations.

A family consists of a married man and women and any children

that might result from their fecund union or any children such
adults united together might adopt. If one is feeling especially
innovative and cutting edge, one might be able to expand the
definition to include the unmarried propagating offspring via
fornication.

However, no matter how much we might want it to be so, the

non-biologically related unmarried adult residing in the home
with the actual parent is not part of the family. They might be
the concubine or harlot of the adult residing in a particular
domicile, but they can only be a friend or acquaintance of the
child not all that different in terms of relationship than the next
door neighbor.

Even if the laws are altered to let anyone live anyway they want
with all the accompanying tax breaks and even welfare handouts
to which they claim they are entitled, it will not be enough. The
consciences of those living in manners contrary to both theology
and biology are so pricked that they will not be content letting
you simply put up with the iniquities they have wrought but also
compel you to applaud and embrace these appalling decisions.

Fourth graders will be required to read an essay titled “My

School Is Accepting -- But Things Could Be Better”. Along with
this assignment, elementary students will be required to define
“gay”, “lesbian”, and “LGBT”. By the way, to the pure of mind,
that acronym is not a reference to a deli sandwich.

About all children need to know about human reproduction at

that age is that babies somehow grow inside women’s stomachs.
My grandfather didn’t know what the word “pregnant” meant
until after he got married in his early 20’s and he came from a
family of ten kids that lived on a farm. Things might not need to
be that hushed over, but neither does everything need to hang out
in the open classroom either.

As part of the curriculum, students will be extended the

opportunity to learn of the warped affections of Elton John, Ellen
Degeneres, Christina Aguilera, and Lance Bass. Are we going to
also learn about the preferred bodily orifices of other historical
figures such as Thomas Jefferson’s alleged bout of jungle fever?

In all likelihood, his name won’t even come up in class.

Familiarity with the primary author of the Declaration of
Independence and third president might fortify students against
the efforts to deprive them of their liberty.

In their preparation for world conquest and hegemony, do Red

Chinese pupils sit around discussing what celebrity likes what
hole? Maybe if American students spent less time on these
frivolities, educators would find the traditional 180 day school
year sufficient and no longer need a reason to threaten an
extended academic calendar.

It is claimed such acculturation (more accurately indoctrination)

is necessary to prevent bullying. However, wouldn’t a
generalized policy of don’t make fun of anyone at school without
bogging down young minds with things that would make even
grown adults blush and giggle in mixed company be enough?.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Though social engineers might try

their hardest, human nature is pretty set within established
parameters and as such these educators might end up stirring up
the very animosities this ideological indoctrination is suppose to
prevent.

Whether this contraindicated outcome is what is actually desired

or not could be open to debate. The state benefits even more
when the results are the opposite of peace and understanding as
activists believe they are then justified in calling for additional
restrictions on speech and thought.
Isaiah 5:20 warns, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put
bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" American society is
swiftly approaching the point of no return when those that run
our educational institutions would rather the nation's children be
acquainted with the most shameful of deeds and desires rather
than the noblest of truths that have inspired the highest of ideals
for millennia

by Frederick Meekins