Editorial
Schools – battleground for morality
The public schools are positively dangerous to the spiritual, moral, and now physical health of our children. And there can be no doubt that this is deliberate.
I’ll begin with the words of Uncle Joe Stalin, the Communist butcher:
America is like a healthy body. Its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.
The Communist agenda
Nikita S. Khrushchev, First Secretary of the Soviet Union. Photo: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-B0628-0015-035 / Junge, Peter Heinz / CC-BY-SA 3.0 Germany License
As a young grammar school student I remember well Chairman Nikita Khrushchev (early fifties) banging his shoe on the desk at the United Nations screaming how he would bury the United States. I vividly remember the words from within.
In 1958 a book titled The Naked Communist by ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen, lists 45 declared goals of the Communist party, I’ll list but a few of these goals:
- #17 Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and soften the curriculum. Get control of the teachers’ associations.
- ##20/21 Infiltrate the press. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
- #24 Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by call them “censorship” and violation of free speech and press.
- #25 Break down cultural standards and morality by promoting pornography in books, magazines, motion pictures, and TV.
- #26 Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural healthy”;
- #27 Infiltrate the church and replace revealed religions with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible.
- #28 Eliminate prayer in schools on the ground that it violates the separation of “church and state”.
It certainly appears to this writer that America has succumbed to the communist mind set under the guise of progressivism. When you thought this administration could not sink lower, they’ve now reached a new low that could prove fatal to those attending public schools.
Anti-morality in schools – an example
The Department of Health and Human Service has funding available to promote “Healthily Marriage and Relationships.” In 2010 Mr. Obama signed into law the Claims Resolution Act. That Act directed $75 million to “a competitive grant opportunity” for “promoting the components of a healthy relationship and the benefits of marriage.” (Read the full document here.)
Sounds good, but now for the shocking caveats discovered by the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA):
One of the eight “specified Healthy Marriage Promotion activities” authorized for a new grant is “education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting” but shockingly, one of the “unallowable activities” is teaching abstinence! Applicants are required to include a written statement that demonstrates their “commitment” to not teach an Abstinence Education program as a part of this grant.
You read that right: to not teach abstinence. Check it out for yourselves, on pages 31 and 35 of the Funding Opportunity Announcement.
The NAEA press release goes on:
“Preventing youth from receiving sexual abstinence skills is very troubling and completely ignores the body of research that now links teen sex to future divorce in marriage,” stated Valerie Huber, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA). A new study found that females who had sex in their teens had nearly double the risk of divorce later in life compared to their peers who waited for sex. [Anthony Paik, “Adolescent Sexuality and Risk of Marital Dissolution,” Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (2011): 472-485, p. 483, 484.]
“The unexplained hostility to risk avoidance abstinence programs defies the evidence-based framework that the Obama Administration purports to support,” Huber added. “With the numerous sex scandals continually played out in the media, it is disturbing that programs encouraging self-restraint and self-respect are viewed as the enemy of the ‘healthy marriages’ these programs are designed to achieve.”
We all know Mr. Obama and gang want to spread the wealth. Now they want to spread STD’s! There are as many as thirty (30) different sexually transmitted diseases. The latest is a new strain of gonorrhea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae) coming out of Japan that resists all drugs that any doctor has tried against it so far.
Now I ask you: where is the leadership of the progressive teachers’ unions? Maybe they’re too busy preparing for the 2012 campaign to continue America’s socialist descent by re-electing the usurper.
Conclusion
I know your deeds. You have a reputation for being alive; yet you are dead. Wake up! (Revelation 3:1-2, NIV)
A war for the survival of the nation and our way of life is raging. We must rid ourselves of these reprobates in the next election. It’s time to clean house from the White House down to every member of Congress who continually violated their oath of office by usurping the Constitution.
When all else fails, read the Instructions:
The whole world is under the sway of the evil one. 1 John 5:19
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness…. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand… Ephesians 6:10-14
Editor’s note: Valerie Huber’s statement above gives the lie to those “progressives” who insist that they are defending “science” against conservatives. Here Huber gives evidence that liberals like “science” so long as “science” agrees with their agenda. When it does not, they do not.
Featured image: the Constitution of the United States. Photo: National Archives.
-
Clergy3 days agoFaith alone will save the country
-
Civilization4 days agoFreewheeling Transparency: Trump Holds First Post-Election News Conference
-
Civilization4 days agoDr. Jay Bhattacharya Will Rebuild Trust in Public Health
-
Civilization1 day agoElon Musk, Big Game RINO Hunter
-
Civilization2 days agoLegacy media don’t get it
-
Executive2 days agoWaste of the Day: Mismanagement Plagues $50 Billion Opioid Settlement
-
Civilization4 days agoWhat About Consequences? Are Democrats Immune?
-
Civilization2 days agoA Sometimes-Squabbling Conservative Constellation Gathers at Charlie Kirk Invitation
The reason is simple: Abstinence only education does not work.
This is not only irresponsible, this is a blatant attack on the health of the American public. Abstinence is the only that 100% prevents STDs and pregnancy. By encouraging teens to have sex, they increase the spread of disease and unwanted pregancies. This is war. When are we going to start fighting? They viciously attack and murder our childran, yet we stand idle. These savages will not rest until the earth drinks up yours’ and your childrens’ blood! These murderers idolize the philosophies and religions that lead to the slaughter of millions under the likes of Stalin and Hitler. They seek to destroy everything you hold dear. They work in the shadows tirelessly undermining our great society. There is no place for us in their world. Make no mistake; they will kill you if you do not take action. Fight them back on every front. Do not even let them catch their breaths. Vote. Form patriotic groups and spread the word. Rally your friends and family to vote. Take back the media. Take back the courts. And most importantly take back the instrument that corrupts our youth, the public schools. Form parent and teacher groups. Let the principals and teachers know you do will not allow indoctrination to be forced on young minds at school. Replace corrupt officials with our own honorable patriots. Be prepared to fight too. Stand up to the courts if need be. That is why we have civil disobediance. Refrain from bloodshed, lest we become our enemies. This war can still be one without a single drop of blood needing to be spilled if we only fight!
>>Abstinence is the only that 100% prevents STDs and pregnancy.
Teenagers are not abstinent. They are promiscuous. They have more partners than you realize, and only knowledge arms them with the ability to fight disease and pregnancy.
It is not the school’s task to interfere in the sex lives of its students. It is only there to present facts and give an education.
>>By encouraging teens to have sex, they increase the spread of disease and unwanted pregancies.
Teenagers do not need encouragement for this. Your fearmongering is blatant and inaccurate to boot. Statistics readily show that teenagers educated in safe sex are less likely to have pregnancies and disease. Abstinence education thoroughly fails its intended purpose, and results in higher disease rates and pregnancy rates.
Teenagers like sex. They do not accept a single class in high school as life changing to their core values about this. Is anyone really surprised?
>>They seek to destroy everything you hold dear.
Blah blah blah. More fearmongering laced with nationalism and a double course of jingoism.
>>This war can still be one without a single drop of blood needing to be spilled if we only fight!
Facts are not on your side, which means that any cultural revolution you fight for will ultimately implode upon itself.
Some teens are abstinent, and whether or not they are, why do you care?
How is it your business if some kid gets pregnant, or gets an STD. Live your own life, stop trying to meddle
>>Some teens are abstinent, and whether or not they are, why do you care?
I care because it is relevant to this discussion.
>>How is it your business if some kid gets pregnant, or gets an STD. Live your own life, stop trying to meddle
You see, here I was thinking that this was a society, and not a series of Islands disconnected from the consequences of each other.
The point of a society is to have empathy for your fellow man. If you know that he is still growing, and ignorant, you try to protect him by giving him knowledge so that his youth need not be scarred by disease or bad choices he could have avoided if he knew better.
Abstinence education is really about teaching religious values to teenagers, which has no place in a public school. The point of public school sex education is to teach about the various sexual infections and diseases, their symptoms and prevention. Keeping teenagers informed thus makes them less likely to contract those diseases, or unwanted pregnancies.
Abstinence education on the other hand has become about denying this basic knowledge of contraceptives and diseases to teenagers, and so nature being what it is, they have unprotected sex and contract diseases and get pregnant, and have abortions.
There is no secular basis for encouraging teenagers to not have sex until marriage. That is a purely religious value. There is no harm in premarital sex if you know how to use contraception. Children need to be made aware of this.
Also, your communism fearmongering is transparent and just makes your article tacky.
To expand on what Simon says (sorry – that’s an awful pun), the point of this guideline is not to promote reckless sexual activity as this article implies, but to focus on effective education that promotes safer overall behavior.
Abstinence education does not work, and there are multiple studies backing that up.
More importantly, when an exclusive focus on “no sex” leaves out any discussion about “safe sex”, the teens who do lapse are more likely to wind up pregnant or contract STDs. Ask Sarah Palin how well her conservative Christian approach to child-rearing and focus on abstinence prepared Bristol Palin for real life. It’s great that she chose to have her baby, but she could just as well have contracted an STD from her uninformed, high-risk behavior.
Most responsible courses in sex education include an abstinence component, and when I’ve discussed this with my older children I have and always will stress that casual sex is a high-risk activity with consequences that can last a lifetime. That said, I’d be a negligent parent if I stuck my head in the sand and pretended that total abstinence is a realistic expectation, and failed to teach my children about ways to be safe if they choose to be active.
Parents always have the option to raise their children with the values that matter to them, but society has an obligation to teach people how to act safely and responsibly when their actions can affect others. People who choose to be sexually active despite their parents’ wishes need to know how to be active safely, because the consequences affect other lives as well.
I think you didn’t read the article carefully. The article began by quoting Stalin and Nikita K. The author is trying to show you liberals how you are falling for a well thought out plan to destroy America from within. Forcing schools to sign a paper that they will not teach abstinence in order to receive grant money from the federal government stinks of government control of our lives. Why couldn’t reasonable, educated adults in a community decide what’s best for their students.
Also, you must be misogynistic fools to avoid the truth about early sexual activity in young females. They are subjected to HPV which 95% of the time causes cervical cancer. Most STD’s have no symptoms until it leaves a women sterile, or a baby with brain damage due to herpes. The stats are there you just need to look for them. Early sexual activity leads to depression and suicide and increased chance of divorce in the future. Most young girls do not want to perform oral sex on their boyfriends but feel pressured in order to keep the guy.How’s that for sexual freedom for women? According to Dr. Armand Nicholi, psychiatry professor of Harvard ” sexual permissiveness has not led to greater pleasure, freedom and openness, more meaningful relationships between the sexes, or exhilarating relief from stifling inhibition but has often led to empty relationships, feelings of self contempt and worthlessness”Please see the July 2011 edition of AARP. AIDS is hitting seniors because that generation only worried about unwanted pregnancies.
Oliva, I think you didn’t read Dinsdale’s response carefuly. The whole point is that Abstinence Only programs simply DO NOT WORK. There is nothing wrong with teaching the virtues of abstinence, there is everything wrong with teaching abstinence only and nothing else. The reason why for the most part teenagers DO NOT keep their abstinence pledges, and then when they have sex they do not have it safely.
“They are subjected to HPV which 95% of the time causes cervical cancer”
They are certainly subjected to this if they don’t know how to practice safe sex and protect against infection.
“Early sexual activity leads to depression and suicide and increased chance of divorce in the future.”
Citation Needed.
“AIDS is hitting seniors because that generation only worried about unwanted pregnancies”
So, clearly these seniors are not practicing safe sex. Most unfortunate. If only they’d been taught this in school, they wouldn’t be having this problem.
Olivia,
Kyle responded to most of your points, but one still needed correction. Your claims regarding STDs and cancer are completely wrong.
Most STDs do have visible signs at one point or another, and they don’t all lead to sterility.
About 50 percent of all sexually active Americans will be exposed to HPV at some point in their lives. Currently about 20 million Americans have HPV. About 6 million new incidences of HPV take place each year.
About 12,000 cases of cervical cancer are reported each year. It is a horrible disease, and I’m not making light of it at all, but 12,000 cases isn’t 95 % of the HPV rate by any stretching of statistics.
Here’s a link to a reputable source regarding these stats:
link to cdc.gov
We can disagree on many issues respectfully, but we should agree to get our facts right before we put them out there to justify our positions.
Here’s some reading to consider, from the Christian Science Monitor:
link to csmonitor.com
Among the highlights:
– “In the United States, states that emphasize abstinence-only education, limit public subsidies of contraception, restrict access to abortion – and, yes, oppose gay marriage – have higher teen birth and divorce rates.”
– “Evangelical Protestant teens have sex at slightly earlier ages on average than their nonevangelical peers (respectively, 16.38 years old versus 16.52 years old)”
Again, the article DOES NOT imply reckless sexual activity. Sorry Kyle, but it is difficult to respond to someone who has failed reading comprehension! PLEASE, read the article again. It is responding to a recently passed government bill about funding to public schools teaching “healthy Relationships” The government is telling the school districts that in order to get grant money, they cannot teach abstinence as ONE of the options for achieving a healthy relationship. See NAEA quote.
Also, how can society teach people how to act safely and responsibly when every image and commercial is about sex? Note: new movie “Friends with Benefits”!!!Da
As for the Evangelical Christians stats please give citation.
And may I be so bold as to say, “That’s why we need a Savior”
This has everything to do with the sexual revolution. Read the article again stating the communists’ goals. All sexual dangers, diseases and broken relationships, can be avoided by abstaining until marriage. God Bless you all and have a great weekend!
“Again, the article DOES NOT imply reckless sexual activity.”
When did I say it did?
“The government is telling the school districts that in order to get grant money, they cannot teach abstinence as ONE of the options for achieving a healthy relationship.”
Specifically the reports states: ‘applicants must include a written statement that specifically includes a commitment to not use funds for unauthorized activities, including, but not limited to, an Abstinence Education program’. ‘an Abstinence Education program’ meaning a program that promotes ABSTINENCE ONLY.
“Also, how can society teach people how to act safely and responsibly when every image and commercial is about sex? Note: new movie “Friends with Benefits””
Very easily. This is the world in which I was raised. It was the world in which my brother was raised. It was the world in which all my close friends were raised, and none of us ever got anyone pregnant and caught any STDs because we were taught to act safely and responsibly despite whatever movie happened to be playing at the time. Yes, even when ‘Knocked Up’ was in theaters.
“As for the Evangelical Christians stats please give citation”
It is directly in the post above yours. In the post that you RESPONDED TO. But here, I’ll give them to you again:
– “In the United States, states that emphasize abstinence-only education, limit public subsidies of contraception, restrict access to abortion – and, yes, oppose gay marriage – have higher teen birth and divorce rates.”
– “Evangelical Protestant teens have sex at slightly earlier ages on average than their nonevangelical peers (respectively, 16.38 years old versus 16.52 years old)”
link to csmonitor.com
Note once again… this info is actually from the Christian Science Monitor. WOW.
“This has everything to do with the sexual revolution. Read the article again stating the communists’ goals.”
Yes I read the article. It’s ridiculous. ‘We all know Mr. Obama and gang want to spread the wealth. Now they want to spread STD’s!’ What? Obama wants us all to get STDs? So… the communists can take over? It didn’t make any damn sense.
“All sexual dangers, diseases and broken relationships, can be avoided by abstaining until marriage.” Uh huh. I’m not arguing that point. I never have. Abstinence is the BEST way to avoid unwanted (or indeed wanted) pregnancy and STDs. That’s not the point. The point is that teaching someone that abstinence is the ONLY way to avoid these things is the WORST way to achieve that goal.
You are aware that only TEACHER LEAD SCHOOL PRAYER is banned right? Students can still pray silently to them selves (and before you bring out some random story of a kid getting suspended for praying himself, the school is wrong on that case.)
Think for a second, Muslim children pray 5 times a day, twice at school. how would you like your children to twice a day, pray the muslim way?
New Jerseyans: We need to take back our schools by electing those who support the Parental Rights Program Act (S2914/A4033, that will have our tax money follow our children to the school choice by the parents.
[…] by Nicholas Purpura, blogging at Conservative News and Views […]
“Editor’s note: Valerie Huber’s statement above gives the lie to those “progressives” who insist that they are defending “science” against conservatives. Here Huber gives evidence that liberals like “science” so long as “science” agrees with their agenda. When it does not, they do not.”
This is a completely erroneous statement. Numerous studies, indeed the vast majority, have confirmed that abstinence only sex education just simply doesn’t work. Children given abstinence only sex education as opposed to those given a comprehensive sex education are more likely be become pregnant at a very young age, more likely to contract and spread STDs, and more likely be hold completely erroneous and often detrimental opinions about human sexuality and sexual behavior.
The correlation of divorce rates with adolescent sexual activity does not imply causality. In fact, divorce rates have steadily risen over the past century, as has adolescent sexual activity, but this does not mean that one is causing the other. Instead, the causes of both of these are reflective of a general change in society, brought about by the civil rights movement.
Sexuality is not something we should teach our children to stigmatize or fear. There is nothing wrong with consensual sex, it’s healthy, normal behavior, even outside of our social construct of marriage. Yes, sex has consequences, but all actions have consequences. Instead of futilely attempting to avoiding this unavoidable behavior, it is a far wiser course of action to learn about the consequences, especially how to prevent the unfavorable ones.
Most of what you’ve written only demonstrates your own fear of progress, a necessary consequence of time. The human species will continue to progress and outgrow outdated paradigms of thought, and this trend is evident historically. You either must change with the times, or the times will simply leave you behind as an irrelevant relic of everything that was wrong with human society in the past, thus making outside observers feel justified in the progress that has been made.
Lastly, Barack Obama isn’t a socialist. When you say this, it allows the literate observer to conclude two things: One, you don’t know what socialism is, and two, your hatred of Barack Obama has made it impossible for you to give any serious criticism, instead you’ve resorted to ad hominem attacks using political labels you don’t understand. This makes it very, very difficult to take the rest of your argument seriously.
[…] by Nicholas Purpura, blogging at Conservative News and Views […]
WOW.. guess this article hit a nerve with all those who bought into the sexual revolution and were traumatized emotionally by their many failed relationships. And for those who want to label me as being “out of touch”, think again. I was once a liberal and I was part of the sexual revolution of the 60’s. For all but a fortunate few, who lucked out with the right partner, the so-called “sexual revolution” leads inevitably to a long string of failed relationships and the all the emotional baggage that comes with repeated failure.
It was only by the power of Christ Jesus that I was enabled to see myself as God sees me. When I humbled myself before God and admitted to the error of my ways I was not only transformed spiritually, I was transformed politically, seeing for the first time that these old hackneyed arguments about “they’re going to do it anyway” and “studies show…” are all lies promoted by those who have lost their innocence and want to make others just like them, so scarred emotionally that most members of this revolution are now living and dying alone (see: link to dailymail.co.uk) . “So what”, you may say. But when you are in the hospital dying and there are no children and no spouse by your side to share your journey, neither I nor anyone else will shed a tear at your passing.
Common sense will tell you that if young people are surrounded by those who approve of promiscuity, they will be more promiscuous, but if they are surrounded by a culture that says “WAIT”, that says give your love only to the one who earns your respect, then most will wait. History is proof of this. Back in the early 60’s when I was a teen in high school there were only one or two girls who dropped out of high school because they got pregnant. Now, it is common and society has had to pick up the tab, not just in welfare checks but in terms of increased poverty, both economically and spiritually. Those who are paying the ultimate price are the children, as studies now reveal that children of divorced parents carry the burden of a feeling of failure throughout their adult lives, leading them to an increased tendency for broken relationships too.
“WOW.. guess this article hit a nerve with all those who bought into the sexual revolution and were traumatized emotionally by their many failed relationships”
This has NOTHING to do with the sexual revolution at all. It is entirely about informing our children about potential dangers (both physically and emotionally) about sex and how to deal with this when they are inevitably affected one way or another by it.
“But when you are in the hospital dying and there are no children and no spouse by your side to share your journey, neither I nor anyone else will shed a tear at your passing.”
Wow, That’s pretty heartless. I thought Jesus taught you to love others unconditionally.
“seeing for the first time that these old hackneyed arguments about “they’re going to do it anyway” and “studies show…” are all lies promoted by those who have lost their innocence and want to make others just like them”
Or maybe it’s because they’re true. Or is your argument that anyone that shows studies that prove this (like for example the Christian Science Monitor link to csmonitor.com ) have lost their innocence and want to make others just like them?
“Common sense will tell you that if young people are surrounded by those who approve of promiscuity, they will be more promiscuous, but if they are surrounded by a culture that says “WAIT”, that says give your love only to the one who earns your respect, then most will wait”
I don’t know what your common sense tells you, by my common sense tells me that young people typically want to buck the system, don’t listen to what authority figures tell them and make many bad decisions. Was Bristol Palin surrounded by a culture that says “Wait”?
“Back in the early 60′s when I was a teen in high school there were only one or two girls who dropped out of high school because they got pregnant”
Back in the 90s when I was a teen in high school, precisely zero girls dropped out of my high school because they got pregnant. They understood how safe sex works, because it was taught at our school.
What I want to know, who cares if teens get STDs, or pregnant, or divorced?
The only teenager you should be worried about getting an STD, or pregnant, or divorced, is YOUR OWN CHILD.
If you want them to be astinant, then tell them to. If they respect you, then they will not have sex. Otherwise, they will have sex, and that’s their risk. NOT yours. And CERTAINLY _NOT_ the schools. As a parent, you have done all you can. You teach them abstinence or safe sex, its your choice.
And as for children who are not yours: SHUT UP ABOUT THEM. You have no right to insist that any child that is not yours be taught about sex in any way. (besides telling them that rape is wrong, obviously).
If some child who IS NOT YOUR CHILD, gets an STD, or pregnant, or divorced (and they were not raped), WHY DO YOU CARE?? WHY???
There is no place for sex education of any kind, abstience or comprehensive, in the public schools. Private schools, (which in an ideal world, I dare say, all schools would be, completely seperate from the government), can of course teach anything they want, be it no sex ed, abstience only sex ed, comprehensive sex ed, evolution, creationism, evolution and creationism, whatever they want.
“If some child who IS NOT YOUR CHILD, gets an STD, or pregnant, or divorced (and they were not raped), WHY DO YOU CARE?? WHY???”
Because I’m a human being and I don’t want others’ lives destroyed.
It’s THEIR life. THEY are free to have it be good, bad, or even “destroyed” as you say.
If THEY want YOUR help, THEY are free to ask.
But for you to busybody in in an uncaapetable infringement on THEIR rights.
THEM being pregnant or having AIDs will NOT affect you, thus you have no right to try and stop that from happening to them, unless THEY ask for your help.
“But for you to busybody in in an uncaapetable infringement on THEIR rights.”
How is informing someone about safe sex an ‘unacceptable infringement on their rights’? What right is being infringed upon? We’re not talking about barging in on strangers and telling them depraved sexual stories. We’re talking about informing teenagers (people who have reached biological sexual maturity) in a clinical manner, about what is happening to them, and how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STDs, two things that would DRASTICALLY change their lives if it they occurred.
If it was really handled in as clinical a matter as you describe, I would not be upset. That, however, I cannot see happening.
Really, I don’t see why parents can’t just tell their kids what they want, be it abstience, or sex with condoms, or unsafe sex. I always thought schools were for teaching reading, writing, and artihmetic.
Also, the right of the parent to have their child taught what they want. As far as I am concerned, this is a clear-cut argument for all schools being private. Then one can teach abstinence only, and one can teach comprehensive sex ed. You can go to whichever one you want. Or at least have sepeerate public schools, instead of having 10 public schools all teaching the same thing, have 5 abstinence only, and 5 comprehensive. And throw in 1 or 2 that dont mention sex at all, why not?
Now, this may seem irresponsible, but parents have the right to have their children taught what they want. It is the same thing with creationism/evolution. Clearly, there is more scientific evidence for evolution. HOWEVER, so many people believe in creationism and want that taught, I would argue public schools should teach both, to make their patrons happy. Or, better yet, have some teach one, and some teach the other. Or, best of all, privatize every school.
Now, I know you think this leads down a slippery slope, and if, say, half the people in America wanted Gene Ray’s Time Cube taught in school, or the theories found over at Science And Math Defeated. By my logic, you say, then public schools should teach Time Cube alongside what we know to be cosmologically accurate. And also teach Science And Math Defeated alongside what we know to be true math.
I would say, “Yes. We Should. The public schools are funded by these parents, they have a right to dictate to some extend what is taught. However, clearly if these schools were all private, we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place.” That is what I would say.
I would also note, as a postscript, by staying abstinent, students will not contact an STD, nor get pregnant.
As a final note, I think the bigger issue here is my lack of empathy for other people. You clearly have good in your heart for these people, and would actively seek for them not to have unsafe sex, and contract an STD or get pregnant. Personally, as long as its not me, I don’t care. So that might be the biggest issue here.
“If it was really handled in as clinical a matter as you describe, I would not be upset. That, however, I cannot see happening.”
It IS handled in a clinical manner. That’s exactly how it is handled. What, you think they just show the kids a porno?
“Now, this may seem irresponsible…”
Yes, it does.
“I would also note, as a postscript, by staying abstinent, students will not contact an STD, nor get pregnant.”
That’s the point. They don’t. They have strong sexual urges, like all maturing adults, so this is why it is important to teach them how to be safe. And by the way, in sex education classes, kids are taught the safest way to prevent pregnancy and STDs is not to have sex at all. The difference is that is not ALL they are taught.
“As a final note, I think the bigger issue here is my lack of empathy for other people.”
Yup, I agree.
Well, that is not how I have seen in handled. I have essentially beeen aware that the do essentially show the kids a porno, say wear a condom, and that’s it.
I was unaware people who run public schools (i.e., the government) are capable of doing anything beyond wiping their own ass properly, but if they are doing this in an appropriate clinical manner, then I am both surprised and impressed.
It does seem irresponsible, that is no reason to not comment on it.
Well, again, in my own experiences, that is not the case. If abstinence was taught at all, it was certianly not noted for being the safest safeguard against STDs and pregnancy. However, if the public schools are able to point this out, as you say they are capable of doing, then I have no real issue with the whole thing. It is just a case of, in my experience, this issue was not handled in a clinical matter, and the whole thing was just another of quadrillions of examples of the government doing something completely wrong.
If a sex ed class actually taught “the safest way to prevent pregnancy and STDs is not to have sex at all. The difference is that is not ALL they are taught.” in a clinical and proffessional manner, that would be ideal. And according to you, that is what happens. So I guess the bigger issue is that in my exerpiences, the government run public schools are just run by typical government incompetent ingrates.
Part of me (the 1% part that has puritan ancestry, no doubt), just wants to say, “Well, if they don’t stay abstinent, then it’s their own fault, and they can deal with the consequences. Their uncontrolled urges, their problem.” But the rest of me is a big fan of the clinical professional comprehensive sex education classes. HOWEVER, I would still rather not have it all, and just have the parents tell their kids whatever they want.
Well, you can agree that I don’t have much empathy (I would not I am not a sociopath; I don’t have zero empathy, and I wouldn’t go out and harm someone myself, I just have a hard time caring about people I’ve never met, and ESPECIALLY when their troubles are of their own devising – i.e., I feel worst for someone I know who gets hit by a car, I feel somewhat bad for someone who dies in a flood, and I can’t bring myself to care at all about someone who knows sex can be dangerous, but nevertheless has it unsafely and gets an STD), but that is beside the point.
“Well, again, in my own experiences, that is not the case.”
Well, maybe here’s something we can agree on. If, as you say, the sex education you were exposed to was essentially “hey kids, wear a rubber when you’re banging a chick”, then yes, these people should be fired.
I guarantee you however that this (if it happens at all) is the exception and that sex education for adolecents is done in a straightforward, clinical manner, which addresses the fact that absitence is the safest way to protect against impregnation and transfer of STDs.
Well, Kyle, it would appear we agree again (I am the same John from the “same sex marraige and religous rights” article, as you could probably tell by my writing stle; and also, I confess, John is not my real name).
If you are telling the truth, then that is obviously and clearly what should be taught. Relgious abstinence-only people can tell their kids to not pay attention in sex ed, and only be astinent.
Stay with this guys, you’re helping a lot of pepole.