Urizen said:
The real issues facing us in terms of homosexuality at this present time is how Christians should respond to generalized push to socially normalize homosexual relationships and equate them with heterosexual ones. This ranges from moves to provide for similar or identical legal status for homosexual relations as for heterosexual ones (civil unions and gay marriage) to an increasing push to teach this effective equality within the government school system sometimes starting as young as Kindergarten. (We've begun to move past simple tolerance now into a push that such relation should be embraced and considered identical. It's no longer enough not to be "homophobic" we must now not be "heterosexist".)
Christians should worry about what they teach in their own schools, particularly that the State has no access to their curriculum. But if Christians want to send their kids to public school, independently of the trajectory of homosexual doctrines said Christians must have a sense that they are sending their Daniels into a Lion's Den. Plainly I am making the assumption that there is no such thing as a "Christian State" in America. It is rather a Babylonian State. You're free to attack that assumption.
Therefore I think the Christian has two choices regarding public school, assuming that the Christian guards the integrity of his private school to be a 100% necessity. That integrity, again, is the State's inability to shape Christian curriculum. Incidentally, the Separation of Church and State is not bad because it keeps prayer out of public schools, but is bad if it has access to Church or home school curriculums, or could prevent me from praying in my home or house of worship.
Therefore the first option for a Christian vis a vis public school is to not send their child to public school. The second option is to send their child to public school when the child is ready to be what John Milton called "a discreet and judicious reader" in his book discourse in
Areopagitica:
For books are as meats and viands are; some of good, some of evill substance; and yet God in that unapocryphall vision, said without exception, Rise Peter, kill and eat, leaving the choice to each mans discretion. Wholesome meats to a vitiated stomack differ little or nothing from unwholesome; and best books to a naughty mind are not unappliable to occasions of evill. Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction; but herein the difference is of bad books, that they to a discreet and judicious Reader serve in many respects to discover, to confute, to forewarn, and to illustrate.
Which is not to say that one should not create a "discreet and judicious Reader" in their child whom they send to Chrsitian school. It is to say, however, that Daniel should not be so timid in Babylon.
For example, let's wholeheartedly accept the premise for a moment that issues surrounding war and it's after affects around the globe are of more lasting importance than the debate within the United States regarding the status of homosexuality. The equation doesn't end there. See, we also have to factor in to some extent the amount of impact we can practically have on a given issue. If for example, devoting X amount of money and X amount of time can have a serious impact on the debate surrounding homosexuality within the United States while that same amount of time and money would have little or no impact in dealing with the war in Darfur, which then becomes a more important focus for Christians living in United States?
Why is Holy Ghost visibly active in Africa, and virtually invisible in the US?