Joyce and I decided to waste no time and visit a gynaecologist today.  Dr Han - whom I fondly remember calling "Han Solo" as a kid - delivered both my sisters.  Now, it appears, he will deliver our kid.

The baby is presently just a little bigger than a speck (9mm) in the womb.  From this size, it will grow into a 3 - 4 kg human with arms, leg, etc. you get the drift.  Amazing !

Joyce is pregnant.  At first we could not believe the results of the pregnancy test kit (since the kit does not say “pregnant” or “not pregnant”, but just displays a line that I think can be easily misinterpreted – not very idiot proof if you ask me, yes I’m an idiot !), so we bought a second kit of a different brand just to make sure.

Joyce is indeed pregnant.

My feelings are mixed : joy (at the fact that I’m going to become father), uncertainty (I’m not sure how life will change), trepidation (the kid is gonna suck up so much of my time and energy), and pride (that "junior" swam so far and so fast).

I also thank God that the pregnancy was not affected by Joyce’s participation in the youth telematch last Sunday.  Although she wasn’t feeling that great, she still took part in the games anyway.  Little did we know that this could have affected the baby !

Remember the national pledge that we used to recite everyday as kids in school ?  How about changing it to - “We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless or race, language, religion or sexual identity, to build a democratic society …”

I thought that the term “sexual identity” sounded out of place in our national pledge, especially when recited by kids, but was surprised to discover that not everyone thinks so.

I had a bit of time in office today.  So I decided to investigate the truth behind a recent report I had read, concerning how James Dobson from Focus in the Family (US) had allegedly slammed Spongebob Squarepants for being gay.  I surfed the Internet and compiled a couple of news reports on the matter.

Snippet from MSNBC :

“A man named Dr. James Dobson, founder of a conservative Christian group called "Focus on the Family" addressed members of Congress at a black tie dinner in Washington celebrating the president’s election victory this week.  He advised the group that SpongeBob had been included in a pro-homosexual video which was to be mailed to thousands of elementary schools to push a tolerance pledge by kids, including tolerance of differences of what Dr. Dobson called "sexual identity."  Dr. Dobson said most of the favorite cartoons of America’s kids were in on the plot, Barney and Jimmy Neutron included.   

There is a video. It was broadcast in 2002 and has been revised for distribution to schools in March. It does promote tolerance of diversity, but contains no reference to sex, sexual lifestyle, sexual identity or Paris Hilton.  

The eight-page long teacher’s guide that accompanies that DVD makes three passing references to same-sex parents. It contains generic advice about what teachers should do if kids ask them about atypical homes— like ones with adoptive parents, step-siblings, or grandparents. Teachers are advised to remind kids that everybody’s family is different, but they’re all based on love.”

Dobson’s reply in Christianity Today : 

“From the outset, let’s be clear that this issue is not about objections to any specific cartoon characters. Instead, Dr. Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that’s determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation’s youth.

We applaud the ideal of championing to children the value and dignity of every human life as well as respect for our differences. What we vehemently object to is using these beloved characters to help advance an agenda that’s beyond the comprehension of 6 and 7 year-old children, not to mention morally offensive to millions of moms and dads.

The video in question is slated to be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools throughout the United States. Where it is shown, schoolchildren will be left with the impression that their teachers are offering their endorsement of the values and agenda associated with the video’s sponsor. While some of the goals associated with this organization are noble in nature, their inclusion of the reference to "sexual identity" within their "tolerance pledge" is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line.

We believe that it is the privilege of parents to decide how, when and where it is appropriate to introduce their children to these types of sensitive issues. The distribution of this video trumps the authority of mothers and fathers and leaves it in the hands of strangers whose standards may very well be different than the children they teach.

By calling to light this video and its affiliation with this larger organization, we are attempting to do for parents what their busy lives often prevent them from doing themselves–connecting the dots.”
 

Dobson’s reply on the Focus on the Family (US) Website :

“… while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister. My brief comments at the FRC gathering were intended to express concern not about SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of their other cartoon friends, but about the way in which those childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children. Nevertheless, the media jumped on the story by claiming that I had accused SpongeBob of being "gay." Some suggested that I had confused the organization that had created the video with a similarly named gay-rights group. In both cases, the press was dead wrong, and I welcome this opportunity to help them get their facts straight. 

I want to be clear: the We Are Family Foundation — the organization that sponsored the video featuring SpongeBob and the other characters was, until this flap occurred, making available a variety of explicitly pro-homosexual materials on its Web site. It has since endeavored to hide that fact (more on this later), but my concerns are as legitimate today as they were when I first expressed them in January.

So let us consider the evidence. One of the first resources to catch our attention on the foundation’s Web site was a booklet that lists a number of organizational "allies," including five of the largest pro-homosexual organizations in the nation … Also, the Web site made available school lesson plans that suggested teachers ask these questions of students:  

"How are you affected by homophobia?" 
"How would you be affected by your sexual orientation were it different than it is now?" "How will cunderstanding these definitions change your thinking about compulsory heterosexuality and homophobia?
"How will it change any of your behaviors?" 
…
"Do you know of any people in your school whose sexual orientation differs from yours?"
"How do you know?"
"Are you comfortable with that person or those people?
"What are some factors that might encourage or discourage a person about being ‘out’ as homosexual or bisexual in this class or school?"
"Answer the above questions in regard to people in your class or school who consider themselves atheist." 

One of the lesson plans, titled, Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation, presents what are deemed "stereotypical definitions" of words that encourage bigotry and bias. If you have any doubt about the pro-homosexual agenda inherent to these materials, check out these loaded terms, which could be coming soon to an elementary school near you. (All are direct quotes.) … Compulsory Heterosexuality … Heterosexism … Homophobia …

Is this the kind of nonsense you want taught to your kids, especially if the nation’s most popular cartoon characters are used to get across the concepts?  I pray not! 

If you’re planning on visiting the We Are Family Foundation’s Web site [www.wearefamilyfoundation.org] to verify the accuracy of the above information, don’t bother.  In the days since this story broke, the majority of overtly pro-homosexual content has been removed …. I will leave it for you to determine the motive behind the mysterious vanishing of such material by the We Are Family Foundation …

Of particular significance is a so called "Tolerance Pledge" that appears to complement the pro-homosexual propaganda found within the once available school curricula. The second paragraph of the pledge reads as follows:  

"To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own." 

The words "sexual identity" in that last sentence hold the key to understanding what is going on here. They reveal a very clever and subtle intent lying below the water line. The stated purpose, as we have seen, is to teach children to respect each other and to accept those who are different. We are entirely supportive of that message. I have been teaching it for years. There appears to be another agenda operating here, however, that has serious implications for your kids. Quite simply, it is to desensitize very young children to homosexual and bisexual behavior …“

What some friends thought and what I believe
 
The above is quite a bit of ranting and slime slinging from people on both sides of the fence.  I can’t tell from these reports whether Dobson had indeed slammed Spongebob Squarepants for being gay – he may or may not have said so, and admittedly he sounds emotionally charged, as do his detractors.  Objectively, however, I would think that a tolerance pledge on sexual identity appears out of place in kindergartens and primary schools.

Apparently not everyone agrees.  I asked a couple of my colleagues for their thoughts on this matter.  Interestingly, a mother of a six-year old boy – who is all for “tolerance” – said that she would have no reservations asking her kid to take such a pledge.

Really ?  I asked her what she would tell her son if he asked her what “sexual identity” means.  

“That’s when you see mummy and daddy hugging”.

I don’t think that such an answer is entirely honest; it also discloses half the picture. You don’t need to talk about “sexual identity” to let your kid know that it’s normal and an expression of love for mummy and daddy to hug (for the simple reason that they are his parents - he sees them behave lovingly).  But how would you tell a kid that “sexual identity” is actually also about daddy and daddy, or mummy and mummy, hugging and frenching each other ?

In professing the ideal of tolerance, have we forgotten to bring our brains along ?

Where do I stand ?  I believe it is important to not just tolerate, but appreciate, a person even if I disagree with his “sexual identity”.  But tolerance can be carried to excess, as in the present case.  “We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless or race, language, religion or sexual identity …” is one pledge that I hope to leave till after our kids complete primary, or even secondary, school.

On a final note, I really like what Veggietales (another kid’s cartoon) creator Phil Vischer says about this issue in Christianity Today :

Q :  How have you dealt with issues of tolerance and diversity in your shows? Cooperation and unity? What were the tensions in addressing these issues?

A : I will, as a matter of principle, never do a show on tolerance. Why? Because that word has become so laden with socio-political baggage I find it entirely unusable. It is now less of a word and more of a mallet used to smash cultural conservatives in the head.

If I were to do a show on tolerance, I would teach kids that the word simply means "the act of tolerating or allowing" and has no more moral implication than the word chair. "A fly landed on my head, and I tolerated it. I am tolerant of flies." "I am tolerant of racism." "I am intolerant of injustice." Most of the German church, to its shame, tolerated Hitler’s policies before WWII. The German church was tolerant.

Racial and gender diversity is part of God’s creation and worth celebrating. (We inadvertently dodged most of the diversity issues in VeggieTales simply because our characters were vegetables. For the record, though, they were vegetables of various colors, sizes, and accents.) …

Q : Would Bob and Larry (Veggietales characters) have appeared in the We Are Family video if asked?

A : That would have been a lively discussion at Big Idea. I think in the end my concerns of "unequal yoking" would have outweighed the free publicity such a venture generates. The wording of their pledge would have concerned us enough to warrant declining the invitation.

Q : What concerns do you have about this debate over We Are Family (and its related issue of SpongeBob’s sexual identity)?

A : To be honest, I’m really not sure what we’re trying to accomplish here. I find somewhat baffling the great shock we evangelicals register when we catch the world acting, well, "worldly." I mean, isn’t that kind of the point? They’re the "world," right? When you start with the assumption that the world is fallen, you’re much less likely to be disappointed when you find it actually to be the case.

As for me, I’m anxiously awaiting the day the world registers great shock at the sight of Christians acting "Christianly."

Q : What hopes do you have? What good can come out of this debate?

A : I doubt if this specific incident will amount to anything more than another "look at the wacky evangelicals" sidebar. But on the positive side, the huge success of recent overtly Christian media like The Passion, VeggieTales, and the Left Behind books is slowly chipping away at the NY/LA media machine’s confidence that they "own the mono-culture." Not only are they beginning to recognize that there isn’t a "mono-culture" anymore, they’re also beginning to recognize that there are huge segments of the audience that don’t like what they make. As much as we evangelicals can find America’s philosophical diversity disconcerting, Hollywood is finding it profoundly discombobulating. And therein lie the seeds of opportunity.”