Sex Education Takes A New Turn In Schools
I am not sure what to make of this article that I found in my Mom's office. It is about sex education classes in schools. I believe it was from the U.S. News Magazine. I am not sure though so don't quote me on that. I am not trying to offend anyone. I do that on purpose, you will know when I want to offend you. Seriously though, take a minute to look at some of the things that are not only being put out in schools, but also in our "oh so tolerant" world. I will throw this in here and you guys can put your input in on it.
"Sex For Dummies"
by John Leo
May 23, 2005
When covering a dispute over sex education in public schools, many reporters know what to do. Just type that the fundamentalist yahoos are at it again. For all we know, editors have installed a special time saving key on newsroom computers so that the usual sex-ed news article pops out in 15 seconds or less. A classic example is the front-page Washington Post piece for Saturday, My 7, dealing with a new pilot program in Montgomery County, Md. The reporters managed to associate the protest with national right-wing Christian politics, the anti-evolution crusade, and Dorothy's discovery in the Wizard of Oz that she wasn't in Kansas anymore. (For a deft [take-down] of the bias in this piece, go to oxblog.com and scroll down to the May 8 analysis "More Ignorant Christian Fundamentalists?")
The school system withdrew the curriculum, for the current school term at least, after a federal judge, Alexander Williams Jr., issued a 10-day restraining order on two First Amendment grounds. Those grounds were viewpoint discrimination (the curriculum teaches "the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle" to the exclusion of other perspectives, the judge said) and stat entanglement in religion. The curriculum depicts the churches that endorse homosexuality as theologically sound, while singling out Baptist and fundamentalists for scorn. Churches differ, the curriculum says, but all agree that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Why the state should involve itself in telling us which religions are wrong and what Jesus said or didn't say is obscure.
Resistance to anything-goes sexual preaching in the schools is routinely depicted as a phenomenon of conservative Christians, but in an analysis of health textbooks, Gilbert Sewall of the American Textbook Council says that the sexual assumptions of the aggressive "health lobby" offend lots of Americans of all faiths and none. Sewall wants sex education to find a middle ground between abstinence-only programs and the muscular "health lobby."
Even apart from the church-state entanglement, the Montgomery curriculum is out of line in dismissing moral claims as myths. On what basis can a state institution tell parents and children that their morality is faulty? In dealing with homosexuality, the job of the school is to teach tolerance, not disparage traditional views. Gays are our neighbors and should be treated with respect. Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, one of two local groups opposing the curriculum, makes this point clearly. "Teaching respect for persons with same-sex attraction is appropriate and right," the group says. "But demanding affirmation of a homosexual orientation and behavior goes beyond the ethic of tolerance." The curriculum does in fact teach approval, but it can't be imposed by state schools.
Indoctrination. Much of the most contested material is tucked away in the teachers' resources guide. Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum complains that health teachers did not mention or show the teachers' materials at parent meetings. "When asked about them," the group said, "the standard answer was they were 'for the teachers only to use and not of interest to the parents.'"
There's a reason why so many sex-ed specialists slide into indoctrination almost without noticing what they are doing. The programs are often prepared with heavy input from Planned Parenthood, gay groups, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, all of which operate on assumptions that much of the public does not share. One assumption is that sex is simply a smorgasbord of choice, and it doesn't really make any difference whom you have sex with or how, as long as you have orgasms and use contraceptives. "Oral, anal, and vaginal sex" all require condoms, says an earnest young woman in a video (since withdrawn from the curriculum) that demonstrates the proper way to place a condom on a cucumber. Elsewhere, the curriculum says, "Sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during early adolescence." Whatever.
The strangest aspect of the Montgomery curriculum is the insistence that students should ponder their gender identity. In plain English, this means boys should examine whether they really want to be boys, and girls should wonder if they should be girls. This is a current obsession in the world of sex-ed, apparently inserted here to accommodate transvestites and transsexuals.
The good new is that local parents and their friends were able to make a solid case, take it to a reasonable judge, and get the county to back down, at least for now. It's a model of how dissenters in other communities should act.
"Sex For Dummies"
by John Leo
May 23, 2005
When covering a dispute over sex education in public schools, many reporters know what to do. Just type that the fundamentalist yahoos are at it again. For all we know, editors have installed a special time saving key on newsroom computers so that the usual sex-ed news article pops out in 15 seconds or less. A classic example is the front-page Washington Post piece for Saturday, My 7, dealing with a new pilot program in Montgomery County, Md. The reporters managed to associate the protest with national right-wing Christian politics, the anti-evolution crusade, and Dorothy's discovery in the Wizard of Oz that she wasn't in Kansas anymore. (For a deft [take-down] of the bias in this piece, go to oxblog.com and scroll down to the May 8 analysis "More Ignorant Christian Fundamentalists?")
The school system withdrew the curriculum, for the current school term at least, after a federal judge, Alexander Williams Jr., issued a 10-day restraining order on two First Amendment grounds. Those grounds were viewpoint discrimination (the curriculum teaches "the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle" to the exclusion of other perspectives, the judge said) and stat entanglement in religion. The curriculum depicts the churches that endorse homosexuality as theologically sound, while singling out Baptist and fundamentalists for scorn. Churches differ, the curriculum says, but all agree that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Why the state should involve itself in telling us which religions are wrong and what Jesus said or didn't say is obscure.
Resistance to anything-goes sexual preaching in the schools is routinely depicted as a phenomenon of conservative Christians, but in an analysis of health textbooks, Gilbert Sewall of the American Textbook Council says that the sexual assumptions of the aggressive "health lobby" offend lots of Americans of all faiths and none. Sewall wants sex education to find a middle ground between abstinence-only programs and the muscular "health lobby."
Even apart from the church-state entanglement, the Montgomery curriculum is out of line in dismissing moral claims as myths. On what basis can a state institution tell parents and children that their morality is faulty? In dealing with homosexuality, the job of the school is to teach tolerance, not disparage traditional views. Gays are our neighbors and should be treated with respect. Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, one of two local groups opposing the curriculum, makes this point clearly. "Teaching respect for persons with same-sex attraction is appropriate and right," the group says. "But demanding affirmation of a homosexual orientation and behavior goes beyond the ethic of tolerance." The curriculum does in fact teach approval, but it can't be imposed by state schools.
Indoctrination. Much of the most contested material is tucked away in the teachers' resources guide. Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum complains that health teachers did not mention or show the teachers' materials at parent meetings. "When asked about them," the group said, "the standard answer was they were 'for the teachers only to use and not of interest to the parents.'"
There's a reason why so many sex-ed specialists slide into indoctrination almost without noticing what they are doing. The programs are often prepared with heavy input from Planned Parenthood, gay groups, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, all of which operate on assumptions that much of the public does not share. One assumption is that sex is simply a smorgasbord of choice, and it doesn't really make any difference whom you have sex with or how, as long as you have orgasms and use contraceptives. "Oral, anal, and vaginal sex" all require condoms, says an earnest young woman in a video (since withdrawn from the curriculum) that demonstrates the proper way to place a condom on a cucumber. Elsewhere, the curriculum says, "Sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during early adolescence." Whatever.
The strangest aspect of the Montgomery curriculum is the insistence that students should ponder their gender identity. In plain English, this means boys should examine whether they really want to be boys, and girls should wonder if they should be girls. This is a current obsession in the world of sex-ed, apparently inserted here to accommodate transvestites and transsexuals.
The good new is that local parents and their friends were able to make a solid case, take it to a reasonable judge, and get the county to back down, at least for now. It's a model of how dissenters in other communities should act.