Rev. DeVries is pastor of the ProtestantReformed Church in Wingham, Ontario, Canada.
It would seem that the Liberal Party-controlled Federal Government of Canada is determined to pound another nail into the coffin of the institution of the family as we have always known it. As if same-sex marriage legislation is not enough, now they plan to spend billions on universal day care for children.
In a timely article in the January 26, 2005 issue of Christian Renewal, entitled “The State as Mother—From the cradle to the grave,” Hermina Dykxhoorn writes:
The Liberal Government has, for more than a decade, been toying with the idea of establishing a universal childcare across Canada. Now it appears they are ready to foist this program on the country in the next year….
Sympathetic MPs [Ministers of Parliament, MDV] tell us that they have never had even one ordinary Canadian woman ask for a fully funded government daycare program. This idea is not coming from grassroots Canadians. The pressure has largely come from the civil service unions who see this as a way of increasing wages for daycare workers and increasing their own membership and influence. It’s coming from daycare operators who see government tax money as more reliable than having to do their own collections and from radical feminists, particularly in the Liberal caucus, who see this as a way to liberate even more women from the drudgery of home and children.
The government can never replace Mom and Dad and has no business meddling in the parental right to determine who will look after children. Neither should the state promote and finance one childcare choice over any other. This obviously has nothing to do with what’s in the best interest of children. It is an ideologically driven plan to control Canadian families, literally from the cradle.
Christian Heritage Party National Leader, Ron Gray, comments in the CHP Communique, Vol. 12, No. 10:
The Federal Government has begun foisting its unnecessary, overly-expensive, and destructive plan for a national daycare scheme on Canada.
Their policy—dishonestly presented in terms of “children’s needs”—is really a massive giveaway of taxpayers’ money to a self-serving education lobby that generally supports the liberals. It’s Adscam on steroids. But it will be harmful to children and families, it will increase social service costs, and it will burden the average Canadian family with about $1,500 or more of additional taxes every year….
What will we get for it? Our children will be brainwashed in political correctness at ever-younger ages. Their ability to form psychological attachments will be impaired, so social services costs—corrections and psychological remediation—will balloon, possibly for generations. The social engineers don’t care; they’re after the children. They want to alienate them from their parents and—most particularly—from any residual morality with which parents might ‘contaminate’ young Canadians….
It should be noted that the Harvard Longitudinal Study shows that daycare children are significantly disadvantaged in later life by the inability to form psychological attachments. The younger the age of which children are put in daycare, the worse is this effect. And a Guelph University study of daycare in Canada found that most daycare centers merely “warehouse.” That’s a far cry from the “early childhood development” label being slapped onto the proposed federal largesse to the day-care industry.
In an insightful commentary, veteran Canadian journalist Ted Byfield writes in the March 14, 2005 issue of Western Standard magazine, in an article entitled, “Hurting Family”:
All these people [Prime Minister Paul Martin and other liberal Party officials, MDV] have fundamentally written off the family as it has existed for countless generations. We must face the fact, they would say, that the traditional arrangement—father working, mother at home—is doomed. In order to ease the burden upon those parents who cannot afford adequate day care, the government must step in.
This argument is both false and hypocritical. It’s false because it ignores the fact that for most families, the second income does little more than pay the taxes. With the new program, more than ever, the mother will have to work to pay the government to do the work of the mother. It’s hypocritical because the federal subsidy could be paid directly to the family, allowing the family to decide whether to spend it on day care, or let the mother stay home. But this very suggestion causes the social bureaucrats to become apoplectic.
Why? Because it would strengthen, rather than weaken, the traditional family, which is the greatest obstacle they face in creating their New Canada. To these “nation builders,” children learn from their parents all sorts of unsavoury things that do not accord with the values New Canada seeks to impose. Parents induce in their children things like belief in God, and the belief that God, not government, should be the chief source of their security. Parents implant definite rules of right and wrong. It is from parents that children acquire deep prejudices against such things as abortion and sodomy. The present schools work hard, of course, to relieve children of all this “intolerance” and “bigotry,” but the schools get them too late. However, if the state can get hold of the child from infancy onward, then great strides could be made.
That’s why the New Canada wants state day care. But it’s also why it favours gay marriage. Obviously, if any combination of people living together in one household can be described in law as a “marriage,” the institution of the family will have lost all legal meaning. Let’s hope that Harper [Conservative Party Leader, Stephen Harper, MDV] becomes even more “obsessed” with the government’s plan to take over the raising of our children. Both poisonous flowers spring from the same poisonous root.
Surely we understand, do we not, that there is no real substitute for a loving mother. And Baby Gap clothing and other “name brand” fashions, family vacations to Disney World, fancy houses, snowmobiles, boats, and whatever other “advantages” or other forms of luxury you wish to mention do not make up for mother’s care, correction, and comfort.
How thankful we must be for mothers of Zion, “keepers at home” (Titus 2:5), women who, by the grace of God, dedicate themselves to the well-being of their families. Such is a truly virtuous woman! “Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her” (Prov. 31:28).
How Low Can You Go?
That is, how low can you go into the pit of immorality and corruption that is sanctioned and promoted by the government? Canada, among other countries, is rapidly attempting to rival the cesspool of iniquity that was ancient Rome.
In the March 23, 2005 issue of Christian Renewal, Hermina Dykxhoorn presents a shocking article entitled, “The next frontier in the Europe-ization of Canada.” The article concerns the possible legalization of prostitution. She writes:
No sooner is one sexual taboo legitimized, the Liberals look for a new sexual frontier to conquer. Liberal Senator Mac Harb thinks removing Section 213 of the Criminal Code, the section that prohibits prostitution, would be a “great idea” that would promote Canadian tourism just as Amsterdam’s red-light district has done for the Netherlands.
Harb obviously hasn’t spent a great deal of time in the heart of Amsterdam lately. It is one of the dirtiest capital cities in the world. What legalized prostitution, marijuana and hashish bars and widespread drug use have done for Amsterdam could only be matched by a hurricane. Sure there are loads of sex tourists and drug addicts from around the world frequenting the city, but, legitimate tour operators are increasingly giving it a wide berth. And Canada needs this?… The Law Commission [of Canada, MDV] conducted a major study culminating with its recommendations in February last year. This study, done by interviewing what they now call “sex trade workers, consider sex work within the theoretical framework of the sociology of labour.” Rather than endorsing the “traditional moral condemnation” they “affirm a growing trend that sees ‘prostitution’ and erotic dance as professions and choices.”
The study concluded that “work in erotic establishments and strip bars is similar to that of a number of jobs in the service sector.” For example, claims the Law Commission, “women choose various professions for very similar reasons: they want to earn a living, they want to meet people and they prefer work activities that are compatible with their personalities and interests.”… “The organization of work also has a number of points in common with other jobs, including hair stylist, real estate agent with respect to, for example, shifts, duties and income structure.” That’ll be news to Canada’s hairdressers. This was endorsed and written by educated legal experts for advice to the government….
Also, the reports adds, “the stigmatization of these jobs conceals the many competencies required in these occupations.” Imagine the hurt of not being able to boast publicly about “competencies” as a sex trade worker. The report continues, “Their choice of profession may be a source of rejection in intimate relationships as well as generally in civil society.”
But the paper does suggest remedies for these problems. It notes, predictably, that “decriminalization of sex workers activities is necessary” but, that “decriminalization alone does not ensure a safe working place for women, nor does it guarantee the protection of their rights as workers.” The Commission suggests “training and activities by sex workers’ associations should be encouraged” as well as “mechanisms for cooperation with various relevant organizations should be implemented.” Can a promotional tour of Canadian schools be far behind? Perhaps a booth at the high school career day?
It’s obvious that having sex with a stranger is no different to the modern Liberal than shaking hands, going to the movies or sharing a meal. It’s a values-free pastime, pure entertainment for the man and a career option for the woman or young boy he’s hired for pay.
The young Liberals’ policy motion was amended to only study the issue. But that won’t be the end. The process is relentless.
Canada spans two beautiful ocean coastlines. It has the Rocky Mountains. Saskatchewan’s waving wheat fields, Ontario’s Great Lakes, Niagara Falls, numerous National and Provincial Parks and so much more to attract tourists. But to our liberal government that’s not enough. Canada needs legalized prostitution.
Anything for a tourism dollar—magnificent casinos for gambling, world-renowned “Gay Pride” festivities, now the possibility of legalized prostitution. Whatever is deemed politically correct, whatever the people want—or the powers that be determine they need, as long as no one’s “rights” are infringed upon, is promoted.
Yes, how low can you go when standards of right and wrong are abandoned and all moral ties have been cut? Very low, very swiftly! But God will not be mocked! His Word is, “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!” (Is. 5:20).
“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whore—mongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).