To: (Multiple email addresses may be specified by separating them with a comma)
BY DONALD DEMARCO
The Tower of Babel, once a localized edifice,
apparently has been extended to the point where it now covers the entire world.
Language is no longer intelligible anywhere and, as a
direct result, people throughout the globe no longer think. In our bizarro world, contradictions abound: Good means bad,
morality means slavery and inclusive means exclusive.
A new “educational” program in Australia,
called “Learn to Include,” is a textbook as well as definitive example of how
this new form of “double-think,” which is the equivalent of “do-not-think,”
operates. The program, which includes children’s books from kindergarten
through Grade 6, in addition to the teachers’ training manual (“Learn to Include”), is funded and promoted by the New South Wales
General’s Crime Prevention Department and the Tasmanian Department of
Educational Equity Standards.
It is the brainchild of
homosexual activists, and its purpose, ostensibly, is to broaden the minds of
teachers and their young students by instructing them on how to be more
The manual strenuously urges the adoption of
“inclusive language” both in its spoken as well as in its written forms. Thus,
the terms “mother” and “father,” for example, that are allegedly “narrow” and
“exclusive,” should be replaced by broader and more inclusive terms such as
In Spain, the words “mother” and
“father” no longer appear on birth certificates. These contentious terms have
now been replaced by “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.” Newspapers in Britain now
shun equally “narrow” and “exclusive” terms such as “wife” and “husband.” Canada, to a
significant extent, has followed suit. The movement toward being more
“inclusive” is a worldwide phenomenon and is thriving.
It is important to point out here
that logic and politics are not the same. Furthermore, indoctrinating
impressionable young children into believing otherwise is an insidious form of
child abuse. The authors of the “Learn to Include” program are political
activists who are smuggling in their agenda under the guise that they are
merely teaching logic.
Logic teaches that the
classification “genus” contains all the various subgroups that belong to it.
For instance, the genus “animal” contains the species “dog” and “cat.”
Likewise, the term “parent” logically contains the terms “mother” and “father.”
But by no means does logic teach that the genus obliterates or in any way
denigrates the terms that it includes. In other words, “mother” and “father”
remain included within the broader category of “parent” and are not banished to
“Mother” and “father” continue to
be distinctive and meaningful terms; and they persist in excluding each other. Because two terms can be included in a
higher category does not mean that they are excluded from each other.
But the purpose of the program is not to teach logic,
but to impose
politics. Its authors want the “inclusive” term “parent” to eliminate “mother”
and “father.” In this way, the alleged “heterosexism” of the mother-father
dynamic would be abolished. As a result, all sexual relationships would then be
regarded as equal.
The process of “inclusion” is
really a process of “exclusion” since specific terms such as “mother” and
“father” are annihilated as they are absorbed into the
more “inclusive” term. The purpose of the program is to exclude all terms that would imply that heterosexuality is
normative and that homosexuality is not. This is a moral/political revolution
of stupendous magnitude.
Similarly, the program urges the
exclusion of the word, “normal,” but only when it refers to heterosexuality. In
this case, it advises the use of the words “widespread” or “dominant.” In
essence, this maneuver outlaws moral philosophy, which is concerned with norms
of human conduct, and replaces it with arithmetic. It is a way of substituting
counting for comprehending.
At the same time, the program wants children to
accept homosexuality as a normal
lifestyle, thus magically revitalizing moral philosophy and reintegrating it
with education. It also wants to label even a reasonable objection to the
homosexual lifestyle as “homophobic,” thereby reducing philosophy to a pathology, and immunizing homosexual activists against any
form of criticism.
Contradictions, inconsistencies, dishonesties, and
manipulating the minds of unsuspecting children are hardly the ingredients of a
good education. Yet, this travesty, in many parts of the world, is what is
currently being put forward as a good education, being illicitly imported under
the pretense of being more “inclusive” than the old education.
We should not be bamboozled, however, by verbal
sleight of tongue. “Inclusive,” as it is now commonly used, is actually
“exclusive,” because it abolishes critical moral terms such as “marriage,”
“family,” “wife,” “husband,” “mother” and “father,” whose meanings we need to
know in order to understand who we are and what is expected of us. Such “inclusivity” is actually depleting our language of its
vocabulary, as well as of its moral force. George Orwell was right.
He made it dramatically clear in his novel 1984 that as our vocabulary diminishes,
our capacity to think diminishes along with it.
A real education makes students more aware of the
specifics of things. It does not attempt to vaporize meaningful terms into
broader and larger categories until they are completely purged of all meaning.
Education should sharpen the mind, not blunt it.
Donald DeMarco is adjunct professor
at Holy Apostles
Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut.