“Finally, stand firm. Be willing to be misunderstood. Be willing to be considered fanatic, paranoid, and obsessive-compulsive. But always stand firm, with love—calm, unshakeable love—with an iron core of determination. No defensiveness, no hardness of face or heart. Just be unbudgeable. “
“The OSSTF spent $385,000 during the 2014 provincial election as part of a union campaign against the Progressive Conservatives. The OECTA spent $2.1-million. Both unions backed Working Families, a Liberal-supporting union coalition that through several electoral cycles has run attack ads against the provincial Tories. This was not the first election where the unions spent big to back a side. It probably won’t be the last.”
Sadly, the Globe sat on this story for an extra day or 2 to help Justin:
Sadly. the money for the union “costs” came from programs for needy students. It is still unclear where the money came from for the “net zero” bonuses and raises for teachers. Special needs?
At the same time, the Liberals are unilaterally cutting doctors’ fees and refusing to go to binding arbitration. Doctors – the ones that work evenings and nights and weekends and Christmas and Easter and March break. As well, CHEO has had to lay of nurses.
So, three days after this scandalous union payoff is allowed to announced, the OCSB proudly hosts Liz Scandals and does photo-ops with her!
Why introduce children to pro-abort, pro-union-payoff politicians!!?
Perhaps, the Director of Ed should pay more attention to getting TEXTBOOKS for all children??!!!!
“Of course, one might agree with much of this and still reject the strong conclusion; one might say, “Yes, I accept the idea of moral truth. I just reject the particular set of moral truths the Church proposes.” This approach has been tried many times. The endorsement of law as “form” which allows us to reject any determinate “content” and to construct our own content is common to various subjectivists, intuitionists, and Kantians. It is found, for instance, in the still-influential writings of Lawrence Kohlberg.
For the earlier Kohlberg at least, morality is simply certain rational constraints upon freedom; morality is the content-free requirement of form upon our reason. Kohlberg himself equivocated over whether morality is truly empty of content or gives us a little guidance. It is certainly hard to take seriously the notion of morality as contentless logic”a kind of color-in-the-picture-for-yourself ethics. Anyone in a real-life situation that requires moral strength, honesty, and accuracy would surely be repelled by the advice that “morality has nothing to say about the details of your choice; it’s all up to you.” To say this is to abandon people when they most need and expect guidance. “
“Yet one of the main thrusts of recent moral education has been to set reason up on its own: to create, in effect, a culture-free morality. Kohlberg, for example, thought that children should become autonomous ethical agents, independent of family, church, and state.”
Since the early 1970s every passing secular educational fad seems to have found an immediate welcome in Catholic education. Dewey, Piaget, Kohlberg, Transactional Analysis, Values Clarification, “non-directive” sex education, misinformative anti-AIDS education, “Protective Behaviours” programs, have strutted and fretted their hour (or their year, or their decade) upon the stages of the Catholic schools. Yet one looks in vain through Catholic educational periodicals, or to CEO courses, for critical analyses of any of these fads or their gurus.
Related to this cultural crisis, and exacerbating it in many ways, were the internal crises of the Church itself, as Catholic education began to implement theories ultimately traceable to dissenting theologians and, beyond them, to influential secular thinkers (the Harvard educationist Lawrence Kohlberg, for example).
PS: Kohlberg also seems to be taught in Grade 9 and Grade 12 in Ontario catholic schools
The whole “sex ed” exemption thing is a rather minor point and is not an effective strategy for parents. The overall EIE programme (no exemptions) is much bigger and much more serious. For example., gay “graphics novels” in Grade 6, sexually explicit lesbian novels in high school (Colour Purple), activist GSA presentations at assemblies, etc etc. etc This has all been documented in other posts in this blog by our Association. Even if you could exempt your child from EIE, your child would be missing English, Math, social sciences etc etc. EIE PERMEATES the curriculum!
This link shows an example of a school retreat that is not part of the sex ed in physed class:
Back to the sex ed exemption thing…. a friend of the CIA has given us some FOI info from the OCSB.
Early draft versions of answers to parents and for the website, information was included informing parents of their right to get their children out of sex ed classes (they children would learn what was taught an hour later in the schoolyard, but that is another tangent)
However, the OCSB explicitly decided that they don’t want to tell parents of their rights! It is like a police officer not informing you of your rights upon arrest or the government passing the Charter of Rights and not making any effort to tell anyone.
What kind of respect for parents is this?
Apparently telling parents their rights is “promoting” it – see below
Original Draft website with info about exemptions:
the same old usual tired stuff.. pro contraception, pro women priests, pro intercommunion with Protestants, etc etc
The Catholic New Times also pushed these things and was banned from the parishes of some dioceses. It was the Canadian version of the “National Catholic Reporter” (banned by its Bishop from using the name Catholic but they ignore him)