EDITORIAL - Some have argued in recent years that the Culture War is over. They claim that God and morality have won, that traditionalists need do nothing but turn in their arms and return home.

But I have news for the optimists and idealists: The Culture War has not ended, nor is any end in sight. Indeed, our moral foundation is more unstable, more unsteady, than ever before.

We journey to Illinois for our first case-in-point. There, officials at Deerfield High School forced their freshman class to participate in sensitivity training on homosexuality. The multiple-session training (or, more appropriately, indoctrination) was led by homosexual upperclassmen.

Perhaps more disconcerting was the secrecy involved. These 14-year-old students were made to sign a confidentiality agreement, promising not to tell their parents. Even after the matter went public, parents were not allowed to attend sensitivity sessions or see relevant materials.

A similar situation recently arose in Massachusetts. When his son was a kindergartner, parent David Parker accused Estabrook Elementary School of discussing homosexuality and transgenderism without parental notification, which is required by state law. When in second grade, Parker’s son was read King and King, a children’s book about homosexuality – again without parental notification.

Parker, along with other parents, had had enough; they understandably and justifiably sought legal action. But U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf, deeming such cultural inculcation didactic, dealt our fellow traditionalists a deep blow.

In his decision, Wolf wrote that teaching children about homosexuality is “reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.” His logic rests on the fact that diversity “is a hallmark of our nation.”

Wolf also believes that such teaching is kosher because American history “includes instances of …official discrimination against gays and lesbians.” Yes, Judge Wolf, but American history also includes (and to a much larger extent) a people who have built their society and culture upon the robust groundwork of God’s righteousness and precepts.

But I don’t see that being used to substantiate judicial decisions.

That these folks support and defend a sinful, unnatural form of sexuality is disappointing enough. But what truly irks me, at least in this case, is the method employed: Using the innocent, impressionable young to bring their ideology into the mainstream.

There’s a reason why the Nazis embraced the Hitler-Jugend or Hitler Youth, why Mao held the Red Guard in high esteem, why Mussolini loved the Balilla. Despite their brutality, these men were undoubtedly smart, for they understood that no populace with a capacity for reason and morality would accept the atrocious rule of a tyrant.

So what did Hitler, Mao, and Mussolini do? They turned to the young. To those who were naïve as to the ways of the world. To those who were vulnerable. To those who would soak up, in a sponge-like fashion, anything and everything taught to them.

After indoctrination, young proponents of these despotic systems often became the loudest, most callous and sadistic supporters of brutal rule. But they didn’t know better; they had been taught a curriculum of evil, all unbeknownst to them.

Fast-forward to 2007.

It does not take a prude to realize that homosexuality is unnatural and errant. Most of the country, in fact, agrees with this claim, as evidenced by the 6-to-1 and 3-to-1 margins by which gay marriage bans passed throughout the country.

If the electorate is against the homosexual lifestyle, then to whom do the activists turn? Like Germany, like China, and like Italy, they turn to the innocent and impressionable youth. They endeavor to instill “sensitivity” and “tolerance” in our children at the expense of the morals we teach and the principles we hold dear.

This is far worse than the political conspiracy of which Hillary Clinton accuses us right wingers; indeed, it is political and cultural assault. The homosexual lobby constantly demands that we mind our own business and leave them alone. I would suggest that they heed their own advice.

Let them do what they feel is right, and let us teach our children what truly is.