Nick Coleman gets everything else wrong.
We don't often agree with Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman, but he got one thing right in his June 13 column; he acknowledges that Governor Pawlenty’s firm opposition to comprehensive sex ed, and the DFL majority's backing down on it, were the result of MFC's mobilization of thousands of concerned parents who called the Governor and key legislators urging them to reject it.
Click Here to read column.
Click Here to listen to MFC Tom Prichard's interview on WCCO.
We also agree with Coleman that "mainstream parents" need to “make ourselves heard.” Please Nick, get as many parents involved as possible, because the more parents are informed of the unhealthy content in several sex education curricula, the easier it is to defeat.
Predictably, Coleman ignored our central theme; that teaching children sex activities such as anal and anal-oral sex is unhealthy. (An examination of several sex education curricula in Minnesota revealed the unhealthy content listed above. See Birds & Bees.)
We shouldn't be surprised then that Coleman called the sex education bill “moderate.” As Coleman quotes MFC statements that exposed the unhealthy curricula, we have to assume he believes teaching children about anal sex, and anal-oral sex is “moderate” as well.
MFC encourages parents to refer to comprehensive sex education as “unhealthy.” “Mainstream” parents understand that teaching this material to children grades 7-12 sex is unhealthy. Most legislators agree.
Also, the well-documented rise in STDs and STIs in Minnesota clearly indicates that current comp sex education is unhealthy as well. In fact, it is a colossal failure as more children have become infected.
Showing posts with label Tom Prichard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Prichard. Show all posts
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
UK regulations on religion
By Tom Prichard
The increasingly aggressive and militant homosexual agenda is viewed for some observers as the greatest threat to religious liberties of Christians in the West. From the push for homosexual marriage to hate crimes laws reflect efforts to eliminate public disapproval and opposition to homosexuality. An excellent example is the United Kingdom’s new Sexual Orientation Regulations which would prohibit Christian schools, services and businesses from speaking or acting negatively towards homosexuality.
A couple of examples already illustrate what this means. First, Catholic adoption agencies in England will be forced to close their doors because of its policy of not placing adoptive children with homosexual couples. British government officials view this as discriminatory, and not as common sense. If Catholic agencies won’t change, then the government can shut down their Catholic adoptive services.
Then there’s the case of the Anglican bishop in Chester, England who said that homosexuals “could and should seek medical help to ‘reorient’ themselves”. For those comments the bishop was investigated by the local police. The local police chief “advised” him that, “civic leaders ought to promote diversity – including homosexuality… in a positive manner.”
Now with the new sexual orientation regulations, religious leaders of all faiths in England are concerned that the government will be aggressively going after speech or activities of those who believe homosexuality is wrong or unhealthy. This is of immediate concern to Christians in England, but it should also be of concern to Christians in the United States where the speech and behavior of people who believe homosexual behavior is wrong and harmful is also being targeted.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
MFC and EdWatch call on legislators to reject unhealthy, anti-family, anti-parent provisions in the House K-12 education spending bill
Press Release
ST. PAUL – Two Minnesota groups jointly released a list of top reasons for legislators to reject unhealthy, anti-family, anti-parent provisions in the House K-12 education spending bill. The Minnesota Family Council and EdWatch today called on House members to reject the provisions which they call dangerous and an unwarranted government intrusion into parenting when the bill is up for a floor vote today.
Government intrusion into parenting unhealthy for families and children
Dr. Karen Effrem of EdWatch identified five different early childhood proposals that are highly objectionable. “These are nothing short of a government assault on the minds of our children and a massive takeover of parenting in the state of Minnesota,” she said. One example she listed was government setting norms for all children from birth to age five in areas like mental health, gender issues, diversity training, and environmentalism. “These have nothing to do with closing the achievement gap,” she stated.
Psychiatric screening is another area the groups highlighted. The controversial mental screening program, TeenScreen, has drawn intense public opposition. “HF6 simply hides TeenScreen by giving it a generic name to avoid the controversy,” stated Effrem, “but the author made it clear that TeenScreen is the program that will be funded. The language is intentionally misleading.”
Curricula used for comprehensive sex education unhealthy for children
Tom Prichard of Minnesota Family Council said that HF6 would force comprehensive sex education programs on all middle and high schools in the state. “This is an unhealthy proposal which will be foisted on Minnesota students in every grade from 7 through 12.”
“After reviewing several sex education curricula” added Chuck Darrell director of communications for MFC, “we are certain the instruction will lead to more teens engaging in unhealthy, dangerous forms of sexual activity like oral, anal, and even anal-oral sex. The content is graphic and offensive and even made legislators blush in legislative hearings on the bill.”
“A recent study showed an explosion in STD’s and STI’s including Chlamydia. The reason for the explosion is not abstinence. It is because children are being taught to engage in unhealthy sexual activity,” said Darrell.
“The discussion of abstinence in comprehensive sex education is merely window dressing, said Prichard. “The focus of the curriculum is use of contraceptives. In addition, marriage is not encouraged. We can’t ignore marriage when sexual activity is discussed,” he said. “No legislator should support such a program.”
“We are asking legislators to drop these intrusive provisions. If they are not dropped, legislators should reject the overall bill,” Prichard said. “Minnesota parents don’t want the state promoting programs that undermine our children’s health and well-being.”
ST. PAUL – Two Minnesota groups jointly released a list of top reasons for legislators to reject unhealthy, anti-family, anti-parent provisions in the House K-12 education spending bill. The Minnesota Family Council and EdWatch today called on House members to reject the provisions which they call dangerous and an unwarranted government intrusion into parenting when the bill is up for a floor vote today.
Government intrusion into parenting unhealthy for families and children
Dr. Karen Effrem of EdWatch identified five different early childhood proposals that are highly objectionable. “These are nothing short of a government assault on the minds of our children and a massive takeover of parenting in the state of Minnesota,” she said. One example she listed was government setting norms for all children from birth to age five in areas like mental health, gender issues, diversity training, and environmentalism. “These have nothing to do with closing the achievement gap,” she stated.
Psychiatric screening is another area the groups highlighted. The controversial mental screening program, TeenScreen, has drawn intense public opposition. “HF6 simply hides TeenScreen by giving it a generic name to avoid the controversy,” stated Effrem, “but the author made it clear that TeenScreen is the program that will be funded. The language is intentionally misleading.”
Curricula used for comprehensive sex education unhealthy for children
Tom Prichard of Minnesota Family Council said that HF6 would force comprehensive sex education programs on all middle and high schools in the state. “This is an unhealthy proposal which will be foisted on Minnesota students in every grade from 7 through 12.”
“After reviewing several sex education curricula” added Chuck Darrell director of communications for MFC, “we are certain the instruction will lead to more teens engaging in unhealthy, dangerous forms of sexual activity like oral, anal, and even anal-oral sex. The content is graphic and offensive and even made legislators blush in legislative hearings on the bill.”
“A recent study showed an explosion in STD’s and STI’s including Chlamydia. The reason for the explosion is not abstinence. It is because children are being taught to engage in unhealthy sexual activity,” said Darrell.
“The discussion of abstinence in comprehensive sex education is merely window dressing, said Prichard. “The focus of the curriculum is use of contraceptives. In addition, marriage is not encouraged. We can’t ignore marriage when sexual activity is discussed,” he said. “No legislator should support such a program.”
“We are asking legislators to drop these intrusive provisions. If they are not dropped, legislators should reject the overall bill,” Prichard said. “Minnesota parents don’t want the state promoting programs that undermine our children’s health and well-being.”
Thursday, March 15, 2007
By Tom Prichard
Normally, you would think society would discourage people from engaging in destructive behavior. Take alcoholism for example. Although influenced by genetics, it’s fundamentally a behavior. Alcoholism is associated with a reduced life expectancy of 5 to 10 years, chronic and sometimes fatal liver cancer, pneumonia, higher rates of suicide, and mental disabilities. Costly treatment usually helps only 30% of those seeking it. Naturally, society does whatever it can to discourage people from abusing alcohol and falling into alcoholism.
There’s another behavioral condition that reduces one’s life expectancy by up to 25 years, is associated with chronic and sometimes fatal liver cancer, fatal immune system disease, fatal rectal cancer and higher rates of suicide. Yet treatment usually results in a 50% success rate. The difference is that society often applauds and encourages this behavior. What am I talking about? It’s called homosexuality.
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover wrote this striking comparison of alcoholism and homosexuality in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. The comparison shows that homosexual behavior is more dangerous than alcoholism. What’s so sad is that alcoholism is discouraged and frowned upon while homosexuality is applauded and even celebrated by many in society.
True concern for homosexuals involves confronting - not endorsing homosexual behavior. While this might not be popular, it’s the right and loving thing to do.
Normally, you would think society would discourage people from engaging in destructive behavior. Take alcoholism for example. Although influenced by genetics, it’s fundamentally a behavior. Alcoholism is associated with a reduced life expectancy of 5 to 10 years, chronic and sometimes fatal liver cancer, pneumonia, higher rates of suicide, and mental disabilities. Costly treatment usually helps only 30% of those seeking it. Naturally, society does whatever it can to discourage people from abusing alcohol and falling into alcoholism.
There’s another behavioral condition that reduces one’s life expectancy by up to 25 years, is associated with chronic and sometimes fatal liver cancer, fatal immune system disease, fatal rectal cancer and higher rates of suicide. Yet treatment usually results in a 50% success rate. The difference is that society often applauds and encourages this behavior. What am I talking about? It’s called homosexuality.
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover wrote this striking comparison of alcoholism and homosexuality in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. The comparison shows that homosexual behavior is more dangerous than alcoholism. What’s so sad is that alcoholism is discouraged and frowned upon while homosexuality is applauded and even celebrated by many in society.
True concern for homosexuals involves confronting - not endorsing homosexual behavior. While this might not be popular, it’s the right and loving thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
