To my mind, the article below is indicative of where all parts of Western society will go, devoid of the restraining power of God. The coercive power of the state, brought to bear in the attempt to enforce a new morality.
The real failure here is of the Church – the Church that is called to be salt and light in the world, but failing to be either. The judgment falls on the Church first, as it dwindles into irrelevance. Then upon society as it receives the ultimate judgement – freedom to do as it wishes.
MONTREAL, Quebec, February 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A professor at McGill University has published a strong condemnation of the Quebec government’s “policy against homophobia,” which was released in December. Warning that this policy represents a “declaration of war” against any who oppose the homosexualist agenda, Dr. Douglas Farrow, Professor of Christian Thought, calls on his fellow citizens to take a stand against it.
When the Quebec Ministry of Justice released the policy before Christmas, it was held up as the first of its kind from a North American jurisdiction. The Ministry asserted that, with homosexuality having achieved full normalization in Quebec law, the present policy aims to normalize homosexuality on the social level.
Dr. Farrow’s article, entitled “The Government of Québec Declares War: on a ‘homophobic’ and ‘heterosexist’ populace,” was published on the Catholic Civil Rights League website.
The Quebec policy, writes Dr. Farrow, “diagrams a full-scale assault, to be coordinated by an inter-departmental committee, against ‘homophobic attitudes and behaviour patterns’ and ‘sets out the government’s goal of removing all the obstacles’ to full recognition of LGBT interests and modes of life.”
“What is thus promulgated is no ordinary policy document,” he continues, “for it aims at the conversion, not merely of this or that piece of public infrastructure, but of the psychological and moral and sexual infrastructure of a generation.”
He emphasizes that the initiative represents an unprecedented interference of government into private affairs, and that it thus threatens basic freedoms. “Herewith the Ministry of Justice moves boldly and decisively into territory once reserved for the voluntary organs of civil society,” he explains. “Not only is homophobia to be eradicated ‘at all levels of society,’ it is to be eradicated as a matter of government policy and by means of government action.”
The policy is “an official endorsement of – indeed, the assumption of full responsibility for – the activist agenda of so-called LGBT groups,” he says. “As such, it is also a declaration of war by the Charest government on all groups and citizens who oppose that agenda.”
“Can the government win such a war?” he asks. “Perhaps not. But a government so lacking in constitutional modesty, in moral judgment, and in political sense as to wage it, is a government that can and will wreak havoc in Quebec society.”
Farrow undercuts the ideological assumptions driving the government’s plan, dissecting, for example, a statement on it from Premier Jean Charest. “Our society has everything to gain from accepting sexual diversity and fighting intolerance,” Charest proclaimed.
While such a claim is commonly accepted at face value, Farrow raises some of the numerous questions underlying Charest’s assertion. “Refusing to accept sexual diversity as a public desideratum may indeed be a form of intolerance, but is it a bad form of intolerance or a good form?” he asks, for example.
The document focuses on combating “homophobia,” but Farrow says that “we cannot get the measure of this document” without a grasp of what he says the government sees as homophobia’s ‘twin evil’: “heterosexism.” “Heterosexism,” according to the policy, is “affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm or the highest form of sexual orientation.”
Farrow points out the fact that, in rejecting “heterosexism,” “the Government of Quebec has rejected heterosexuality as a social norm!” and he says that it is there where “the full scope of this absurd war begin[s] to appear.” He relates the obvious fact that Quebec society, as all others, was built on ancestors “who all took heterosexuality as the social norm.”
“The Government of Quebec, giving a mind-boggling twist to the doctrine of original sin, has
declared all the implicit and explicit ‘heterosexism’ that is built into these undeniable
facts an enemy of the state,” he says. “In its breathtaking stupidity it has declared war, not only on its own citizenry, but on nature itself.”“Institutions, public and private, will be pressed into partnership,” Farrow warns. “The cooperation of every citizen is already expected, and will soon be demanded. A supportive school curriculum, mandatory in nature, will be forthcoming – indeed, the Ethics and Religious Culture program has already laid the foundations.”
Farrow connects what he calls the government’s ‘impaired judgment’ with the formerly Catholic province’s denial of its faith during the Quiet Revolution. “[The government’s] thinking has become futile because it no longer acknowledges what every human being should acknowledge about the Author of morality or about the fundamentals of morality,” he says. “In other words, because it has carried an earlier revolution, the Quiet Revolution, much too far, and got it all mixed up with the sexual revolution that began about the same time.”
Heterosexuals are equally to blame as homosexuals, he says, for “what John Paul II dubbed ‘the contraceptive mentality’ helped to produce our moral blindness and corresponding intellectual futility.”
Farrow concludes by urging his fellow citizens to stand up against the government’s attack. “War has been declared, and war there will be,” he states. “Let those who intend to fight, fight now. Let them fight with the weapons of St Benedict, yes, but with the weapons of Martin Luther King, Jr, too. Let them meet and consult, and determine to act publicly and in concert, laying aside their customary deference, which has no place in a time of war.”
Fight we must, though I suspect it may be a guerilla war.
The Age To Come 
Britain is heading down the same road with its proposed Equality Bill. Harriet Harman, the minister responsible, says she wants to engineer a “new social order” in which we WILL be equal! Karl Marx couldn’t have put it more succinctly.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7017808.ece
LikeLike
Interesting that. I’ve been following the schenanigans over the pond too, and it seems to me that the UK are on a similar, perhaps more advanced, track.
LikeLike
This is more and more widespread. Gagnon has documented numerous cases. Of course “guerilla warfare” will be difficult with blogs as documentation.
In the end, GOD prevails. Your witness to faith and prayer are so helpful!
LikeLike
Hello Jeff, thanks for dropping by. I think these blog things are good to raise the profile of such realities that will never be shown by the MSM. Perhaps to document how far we have fallen.
In the end, as you say, God prevails!
LikeLike
Re Jeff’s comments – I concur.
Jeff; references to “Gagnon” would be helpful in the “guerilla warfare”. In my estimation this begins internally and individually, with of course the backing of the Holy Spirit.
Peter your comment “The real failure here is of the Church”, is so true. But I suspect (although I hope not) our thoughts on the reasons may differ. For instance our failure to be “light and salt” can be traced back almost from its inception.
Awaiting your comments and insight with excitement. Perhaps eventually a new post dedicated to this subject to support the Church in this ongoing Spiritual (Guerilla) War.
LikeLike
We continually fall short of the mark, it is true. Difference is that, to date, there has not been the revival that has made all the difference.
Still, as society follows its own path, it may provide the remnant with the impetus to shine as Christ calls us to do.
LikeLike
With reference to the church specificly ACNA, I am very concerned that in spite of the appearance or perhaps I should say the potential of revival I fear that she will not recognize the need to go back far enough (repent) to be able to provide for her people the vehicle or understanding to know the will of God.
For instance;
In your second paragraph you suggest that the anti-Christ direction of society may create impetus for the remnant to shine. I humbly suggest that when the church becomes a remnant the Clarion of Christ will change from “let your light etc” to “stand fast”. This brings us to a most important part of “The Age to Come”. Where are we? Is there a rough time-line as suggested by Him in Matt.24? Notwithstanding, “no man knows the hour or day”, but in conjunction with the ‘wedding feast” parable that warns of the need to maintain “oil in our lamps”, are these valid questions?
LikeLike
This is what Paul had to say about this:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons–not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world.
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one.
For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside.
“Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (1 Cor 5:9-13)
I think it’s a shame to see the governments of our nations campaigning to force our people to accept this kind of debauchery as perfectly normal and okay. We may suffer persecution for refusing to participate and assist people in their sin. We may suffer persecution for teaching our children the nature of sin and that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. But we are the church–persecution is our birthright. Jesus promised us that we would experience suffering.
I think we have to remember that this is not OUR society. Canada, Great Britain, the US, all of them are the kingdoms of this world. We are citizens of Jesus’ Kingdom. If I don’t keep this at the top of my mind, it’s easy to become horribly depressed because the kingdoms of this world are all going the way of this world and it’s not pretty.
But we are of Christ and have overcome the kingdoms of this world. Therefore, we say, “Come quickly, Lord Jesus!” and they will say, “Fall on us and hide us from the wrath of the Lamb.” God will judge those outside. We don’t have to–it’s too hard for us.
We are of the light; they are of the darkness and they will do the deeds of darkness. Let’s make sure we’re doing the deeds of light, no matter what it may cost us.
Love in our Lord Jesus,
Cindy
LikeLike
Thank you Cindy such a point of view is right on!!
your statement and Paul’s letter seem to contradict Dr. Farrow’s position. I am greatful for learning of this fearful threat, however I would like more dialogue especially from Peter regarding what the Christian position should be. If we are if fact in that time of “Standing fast” than I would agree. If however the time is such where we are still to “defend Christ” than are we not presented with our own Christian “Jihad?”.
I beg clarification on this matter In Christ Jesus.
LikeLike
Hi, Stuck
I’ve been doing a search of the NT, and I don’t find where we’re called to defend Christ. In every instance of the word translated “defend” that I found, it had some meaning other than us defending Christ or the faith. Jesus is huge. Next to Him, Satan looks like a pathetic, deformed worm. We don’t need to defend Jesus.
The instances where believers are urged to “contend for the faith” look more to me like an exhortation to stand fast in the faith. We aren’t called to defend the faith in the sense of engaging in some physical fight–whether political or military–in the world. Not that God would never call someone into politics–that’s for Him to say, not me.
But, no–I don’t think it’s our job to save the world. It’s our job to do what Jesus tells each of us to do, consistent with His written word.
Love in Him, Cindy
LikeLike
Somewhere in scripture it says words to the effect; (if you do not defend me than I will not defend you – Jesus) I can’t find it but this I did find – “WE receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ’s flock, and do *sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the world, and the devil, and to continue Christ’s faithful soldier and servant unto his life’s end. Amen” from the BCP (baptising of children).
Cindy please don’t think I am trying to prove you wrong. I am simply seeking full understanding and prayerfully ask for help.
Our Love together in Him is so much larger than any difference we might wrestle with for a time.
LikeLike
Hey, Stuck. No fear–you’re not offending me. The verse you’re thinking of is Matthew 10:33-34. Confessing Jesus isn’t the same as defending Him. Maybe we’re interpreting that word, “defend” differently. My Jesus doesn’t need defending–but we must not be ashamed to be named by His name, no matter what the cost. That said, I do think He forgives those who fail in this and then repent. Look at Peter.
As to the baptizing of children, I can’t find that passage you quote in the bible. And I don’t find infant baptism there, either. Are you sure you’re not talking about some document of some denominational church?
In His love,
Cindy
LikeLike
‘Standing fast’ and ‘letting your light shine’ are facets of the same diamond, facets which present different aspects often depending on whether persecution is passive or active in nature.
Blessings,
Peter
LikeLike
I have been remiss in keeping up with your Blog Peter, I don’t agree with your “diamond” assertion. I have interpreted the term “Stand fast” as being the last call from our Lord to the Church as in (now that all else has failed) Stand Fast! as opposed to “Let your light shine” which is a form of evangelism.
I have let my comment stand although in looking for reference I have discovered that in several instances the term stand fast is used differently I therefore retract my initial disagreement and thank God for enlightenment.
LikeLike
Cindy – My apologies for seeming to lead you down the garden path, you are correct my quote is from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and is the charge place upon all persons at their Baptism. I regret the assumption you were Anglican.
LikeLike
The diamond is us Stuck, albeit we are somewhat rough around the edges, but lit from within by Jesus. The more transparent we are, the more His light shines through us. 🙂
LikeLike
Blessed Amens to that Peter!
LikeLike