Tag Archives: Family

News

How far have Canadian public schools gone to push leftist ideology?

3 Comments
Map of Canada
Map of Canada

From the National Post.

Excerpt:

In the quest to instill healthy eating habits, schools in Ontario have banned bottled water, but not decaffeinated soft drinks. Fries are out, but pizza is in, as long as it has whole-wheat crust, low-fat cheese and no pepperoni. In Alberta, Dunstable School south of Slave Lake instituted a “Character Education and Virtues Program” that involved rewarding students who did good deeds by putting their names on a wall, giving them a free pizza lunch and a chance to win money for a bike. But the program was also used to monitor the number of good deeds each student performed and then investigate those who didn’t do enough.

A New Brunswick school was met with outrage when it tried to impart moral values to its Grade 4 students by asking them to decide in 10 minutes or less who they would save if the Earth was about to explode: an Acadian francophone, a Chinese person, a black African, an English person or an Aboriginal person. The problem came when a parent, whose daughter was adopted from Ethiopia and was the only visible minority in the class, felt the project promoted stereotypes, prompting the province’s education minister to condemn the assignment.

Such morality-based assignments are part of a growing emphasis on cross-curriculum teaching, which encourages teachers to find lessons that draw links between a variety of academic subjects, said Doretta Wilson, executive director of the Society for Quality Education.

The organization conducted a study to look for errors and “unsubstantiated dogmatic statements” in Canadian science curriculum. It found a Manitoba science manual that urged teachers to promote the message that historic Aboriginal cultures “exemplified the qualities of good stewardship in their interactions with the environment,” and a New Brunswick Grade 5 science class policy that promoted the belief that sauna whirlpools and other alternatives to conventional medicine “prevent or cure illnesses.” In Quebec, it found a physics curriculum that advocated that science could be used to help advance Quebec nationalism because “a society can express its cultural identity only in conjunction with some form of scientific and technological autonomy.”

Increasingly, value-based teachings have come in the guise of environmental activism, which school have been promoting with varying degrees of commitment and sometimes conflicting messages.

As part of the Toronto District School Board’s climate change action plan, an elementary school had every student write a letter to the Prime Minister to crack down on idling vehicles and held a contest to find the student who could design the best “eco-ticket” to be slapped on the windshield of an offending car.

Meanwhile in natural gas and oil sands communities in northern Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan, the petroleum industry has banded together to create its own environmental awareness program for elementary schools. As part of the program, students don a chef’s hat and have a “fossil fuel bake” and then put on a “petroleum play.” The program donates $5,000 to the school to help create an outdoor education project.

Global warming alarmism is nothing but socialism – i.e. – government-controlled redistribution of wealth. So what we have here is the taxpayer-funded indoctrination of children so that the children will believe in government control of the free market (production and consumption).

I find it very annoying that Christians often want to provide these public schools with more and more money. I often have discussions with Christians who are in favor of public schools and single-payer health care who nevertheless want to get married and have families. Do they not realize where the money for all of these government programs comes from? The money comes from families and from the companies who employ parents. So the very people who support social programs, poverty programs, environmental programs, education programs, etc. are the ones who are working to undermine civil society by transferring wealth from families and the businesses who hire parents to government.

What I find the most perturbing is how Christians bash businesses and capitalism and then complain that men won’t marry. What sort of man wants to pay half his income to secular-leftists so that his children can be indoctrinated by public schools? (And you can’t opt out of paying for them) When Christians talk about “taxing the rich” so that government can “help the poor” and “protect the environment”, then they should NOT expect that there will be any money left over for marriages and child-raising. If you think it’s a good idea for parents to pay government to teach the children their worldview and values, then why are parents and families needed? People should just work and have babies, and then the government should take their money and decide what children will believe, right?

UPDATE: I noticed that California gay activists have introduced a bill to push their agenda in the schools as well.

Podcasts

Do people choose their religion based on their country of birth?

3 Comments

This podcast is from Jim W. Wallace of Please Convince Me. (H/T John Barron)

Topic:

Do people choose their religion based on the country of their birth, or based on peer pressure from their local community, or based on pressure from their family?

The MP3 file is here. (31 Mb, 67 minutes)

Summary:

  • people in the early church did not become Christians because of peer pressure
  • Christianity thrived in an environment of hardship and persecution
  • even today, Christianity is thriving in China, in a hostile environment
  • Christianity is actually growing the fastest in non-Christian countries
  • in America, the two fastest growing religions are Islam and “No religion”
  • the entertainment industry, mainstream media and university are anti-Christian
  • many people become Christians on their own, which no family/community pressure

If you listen to his read e-mails, he mentions my post on the hiddenness of God and plugs my blog! Wow!

News

Fewer people are paying taxes because fewer people are married

1 Comment

Here is an interesting essay from The Family in America.

Here’s the problem:

Just two days before Tax Day this year, the Heritage Foundation was quick on the draw with a Backgrounder by Curtis S. Dubay citing IRS data showing that the bottom 50 percent of tax filers pay less than 3 percent of all income taxes. According to Dubay, “the rapid increase in the number of nonpaying tax filers caused by tax credits is leading the country to a dangerous tipping point.” Like other conservatives and libertarians, he fears that once the bottom half of tax filers pay no taxes whatsoever, they “could vote themselves an increasing share of government benefits at no cost to themselves.”

And here’s what’s causing the problem:

More important, this relatively new concern about the growth in the number of Americans paying no income taxes overlooks the social roots of the problem, particularly the decline of the most economically productive segment of the population: the married-two parent family.5 Consequently, few economic conservatives seem willing to connect the dots between the changing demographics of the American taxpayer, which Hodge at least acknowledges,6 and the growth of Americans paying no taxes. They seem more eager to blame the latter on the addition and expansion of refundable credits, especially the child tax credit, not changing demographics. Yet Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, estimates that married couples are far less likely to be non-taxpayers in 2009 than single filers or head-of-household filers. In this last category, his model shows 72 percent paying no income taxes, the highest percentage of all tax filing categories. Only 38 percent of married-joint filers, and 26 percent of married-separate filers, pay no taxes.7

Indeed, the Tax Foundation’s own analysis of IRS data documents the decline in the proportion of married filers from 65 percent of returns in 1960 to 41 percent in the years 2000–02, and the dramatic growth of head-of-household filers, representing largely unwed mothers, from 2 percent to 15 percent during the same period. Moreover, looking at data from 2002 returns, the foundation finds that married couples, while they file less than half of all tax returns, pay nearly three-quarters of all income taxes paid by the American people.8 Even though the analysis does not include changes that might arise from the doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000 in 2003, the numbers nonetheless suggest that the growth in the number of Americans who pay no income taxes is driven more by the retreat from marriage than by the proliferation of credits in the tax code, as problematic as that might be. The numbers further suggest that if conservatives are serious about tax reform, they can no longer ignore the elephant in the room—the retreat from marriage and family life—that undermines the very economic growth they seek. Nor can they presume that a flatter tax system with lower rates and a wider base, favored by the  libertarian wing of the GOP, will lead to smaller government, as analysis by economist Gary Becker shows that countries with flatter tax systems tend to have larger governments.9 They must therefore be open to tax reform proposals that recognize the natural family as the social and economic ideal as well as reinforce the recovery of marriage and the child-rich family—not economic growth for its own sake—as centerpieces of American life.

This is yet another reason for fiscal conservatives to take notice that you cannot have economic growth if the traditional family is replaced with single-mother families. Single motherhood is not a situation where men are responsible and work hard as providers. It infantilizes men and rewards them for acting like nomads and barbarians. And the children who are raised without fathers are not going to be as mentally healthy or productive as the ones raised with fathers. The traditional family, with children raised by biological parents who are attached to them, is an important part of future economic growth. It’s all linked together – social conservatism and fiscal conservatism.