Dear Mr MLA,

I have recently reviewed the provisions of Bill 2 (2012 Education Act), and I am gravely concerned regarding this legislation.

It is not only that in general the Bill assumes sweeping powers for the Minister, but more specifically, it requires all curriculum, including that of home educators, to conform to the Alberta Human Rights Act. This latter is something that should be repealed, not used as the basis of further legislation, as it has had seriously negative effects upon the freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this province. In particular, it in essence prohibits Christian home educators (and others who share a basic biblical worldview) from teaching the biblical view that homosexual acts are wrong (“sinful”). This proscription applies, even though Christians teach kindness and love toward sinners; it is the intent of the Alberta Human Rights Act, and therefore Bill 2, to normalize and justify homosexual acts, period.

While in interviews, members of the Minister’s office have suggested that Bill 2′s provision affects only curriculum and not a family’s private views, this is not a satisfactory response.

First, this response presupposes a fundamental difference, and indeed incompatibility, between Christian faith, on the one hand, and “real life,” including education, on the other. This is unacceptable. Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, is Lord or lords (meaning master of all) and King of kings, not a private aid to personal devotion or an assistant to secret beliefs. The Bible ought to be the basis of the moral dimensions of education, not the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Moreover, the response of the Minister’s office presupposes that Bible courses themselves will not be part of the curriculum, or if they are, they must be circumscribed by the anti-biblical rules of the Alberta Human Rights Act. This is an attack upon all religious education in both home education and private Christian schools. Part of the point of private Christian schools and much home education is the ability to provide Bible courses, and Bill 2 is at best a restriction of the basic purpose of such education.

Furthermore, the response of the Minister’s office is unsatisfactory because it of necessity grants the Province tremendous leeway, particularly with home schools, to persecute those who would defend biblical moral teaching. The concept of curriculum is, and ought to be, broader in the context of home education than is available in the government schools. The Bill leaves far too much room for the Minister or bureaucrats to forbid parents from full-orbed biblical instruction.

The Province of Alberta does not own the children who reside within it, and would do well to remember that politicians and bureaucrats are servants of the people, and not the other way around.

In view of this, I am imploring you as an MLA to:

1. Vote against this Bill as it stands;
2. Work against the general impulse of putting near-dictatorial powers in the hands of the Education Minister;
3. Work toward the repeal of the Alberta Human Rights Act, which is in contradiction to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which opens by recognizing “the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

Thank you in advance for your prompt and diligent response to this matter. Your work is critical for the maintenance and restoration of genuine religious and parental freedom in our province.

Yours,

[Signature]

The survey lists five suggested areas of “economic stimulus” that you are supposed to rank, and also offers a sixth option, where you will be allowed to suggest your own priority on the form’s next page.

What I did was make my own priority #1, then listed the rest in the order of what I felt were most legitimate/least threatening to long term stability, and the least redistributive. The substance of my #1, of course, was that the government not attempt to artificially stimulate the economy, as every effort to do so requires moving assets (in the form of taxes etc) from society as a whole, or from more productive sectors, in particular, to those which are least efficient and represent the most drain on the economy.

I then ranked the others like this:

(2) infrastructure (just to acknowledge that at least some infrastructure is legitimate and necessary for government involvement);

(3) build strong sustainable labour markets and training incentives (my intention here is that Canada be promoting international trade, and the free market can take over);

(4) invest in housing (I don’t believe government should be doing this, but at least real estate usually doesn’t depreciate and the investment wouldn’t be a complete waste);

(5) support traditional and emerging industrial sectors (I read this primarily as “bailout the industries,” which rewards inefficiency and steals from other sectors which have learned to function productively in the current market);

(6) improve access to credit (my argument is that artificial intervention into the area of credit with lead to serious issues down the road – think of what happened in the United States when the bubble burst).

Aside from the ranking of stimulus priorities, the form also asks what can be done to help keep the economy moving. What I stressed is that clear taxation rules and low tax rates, combined with balanced government budgets, offer stability and make an economy inviting for foreign investment.

Take the survey and say no to the implicit national socialism that undergirds the drive for government-invented “economic stimulus.”