Sure, but that’s still just preaching at them. Some aren’t going to remain celibate no matter what you say, of course. For them, educating them, helping them, showing Christian compassion if you like, entails informing them of the facts and giving them the information they need to avoid the negative consequences.
Isn’t it true that areas where abstinence-only sex ed is taught have higher teen pregnancy rates than the ones where *real * education is performed?
Incompetence. Do you think the people who won’t let their kids into the sex-ed program and don’t want other kids to get in either are holding out because they plan on giving their kids the same factual information at home?
Notice that I said “encourage” those things, I didn’t say preach them to the exclusion of all else.
I know. I’m agreeing with you but I do think we have to go further.
Actually, I share your reservations about the facts WorldNetDaily claims are being taught in this class, and I think most of your above points (or some variation thereof) ought to be included to balance things out. I don’t need the public schools to become a propaganda machine for my own viewpoint. I’m all in favor of giving the kids all the facts. Since my side of the debate has it over the other side in both quality and quantity of facts, I’m fairly confident that the kids will make the right choice on their own.
On the other hand, what if, while teaching a strictly fact-base, biological-oriented section on homosexuality, a kid in the class says something like, “I’m against homosexuality because Jesus says gay people go to hell.” Would it not be appropriate, under those circumstances, to point out that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, one way or the other? It seems likely to the point of certainty that this particualr argument is going to come up in class, and it does not seem inappropriate to me that a teacher be prepared to correct a factual misunderstanding. If the quotes provided by WND were presented in the curriculum in this manner, and not as part of a lecture or assigned reading material, then I would have no objection to it at all, regardless of what other facts accompany it.
This does raise the question of who is cherry-picking facts, though. Is the curriculum cherry-picking facts to present a biased account of homosexuality, or is WND cherry-picking facts to present a biased account of this curriculum? Who knows? The section they got “Jesus says nothing about homosexuality” may very well include a detailed description of the objections to homosexuality raised in the Old Testament and the writings of St. Paul.
Why teach ANYTHINg about what religion views as sinful or not? What’s the relevance of religion here?
Because what Jesus said, or failed to say, is not remotely relevant to a sex education class taught in a public school.
Very valid point. As I mentioned above, my comments are based on the WND article; if it is wrong, then my comments are not applicable. But the general proposition is that a public school should not be offering any religious content in a sex-ed class. Jesus’ comments or silence is simply not relevant; whether to apostles were models of sexual probity or daisy-chaining each other every night is meaningless.
“Parents must sign permission forms for their children to participate in the [sex-ed] evolution curriculum, which is part of a semester-long [health] science education program, the Washington Post reported. Families also have the option of putting their children in an alternative, including an [abstinence-only] intelligent design program. But the opponents argue the opt-out provision discriminates against these children because it forcibly segregates them.”
Valid analogy?
No, and I believe this is what distinguishes the two cases: in the evolution/intelligent design divide, we are teaching objectively verifiable fact. In the sex-ed class, we are teaching what should be regarded as right, or moral, behavior, which is not objectively verifiable. If the sex-ed class confines itself to information that does not reach the issue of morality, or religious issues, then my objection vanishes.
I disagree, strongly.
To repeat my earlier comments: there are gay students out there, who are repeatedly hearing that they are an abomination due to their sexuality. These students have the onerous task of coming to terms with their sexuality and deciding how they want to live their lives. So, shall we continue to let them stumble along blindly, or shall we let them make as informed a decision as possible?
Letting kids come to terms with their own sexuality, so that they are prepared to deal with the frustrations and stresses that go along with it, is well withing the purview of a sex-ed class. And like it or not, properly addressing that topic requires referencing what other prominent voices are saying about it. If major religions in this country had nothing to say about the subject of homosexuality, it wouldn’t be an issue.
But they do have something to say, don’t they? And, dare I say it, what they have to say does not always represent a balanced viewpoint. I daresay that James Dobson, to pick a name off the top of my head, isn’t going to be mentioning anytime soon that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. But to a young Christian student, struggling with his or her own sexuality and trying to decide how to reconcile it with their personal faith, that fact might just be relevant.
How can we claim to be acting in the best interest of students if we don’t make every effort to help them make the best decision possible about such important issues?
Homosexuality is not normal, TYVM. The norm is heterosexuality. I don’t believe that homosexuality is wrong either. But homosexuals are a definite minority.
No we aren’t. That’s what AO curriculums do, not general sex ed.
I have seen no indication that they’re teaching “morality,” but to some degree religious objections to things like homosexuality and premarital sex have to at least be acknowledged or they become an elephant in the room. I think the most fair and objective way to deal with it is to acknowledge those objections but point out that they are not universal, that the US is not a theocracy (yet), and that these issues of sexual morality are opinions, not facts.
A homosexual orienation is well within the “normal” range of human sexuality. The word “normal” is almost meaningless, but for the purposes of conversation, homosexuality is not pathological, or “abnormal” in any psychological sense of the word any more than being left handed or having freckles.
First, the same kind of people that are suing over the sex-ed situation would undoubtedly use the same tactic and deny that evolution is “objectively verifiable fact”.
That aside, I was under the assumption (per the conversation in the thread above) that the sex-ed class was not, in fact, teaching issues of morality. Rather, the parents (and their church and politically affiliated handlers) were INFERRING moral lessons (homosexuality is ok) from non-moral class topics (“Abstinence until marriage” is detrimental to “GLBT youth.”)
My other objection is this: where is there a legal requirement that public schools only teach morally neutral material? Schools instill moral values all the time. It’s just that this time, these parents take offense. If I personally believe that the massacre of 1 million Tutsi was morally acceptable because I am a Hutu and think that Tutsi are cockroaches, then do I have the right to demand not only that the school not teach my child that the genocide was wrong, but not teach other children as well?
Because you are deciding that the best decision possible is something that the religious viewpoint disagrees with. And you’re cherry-picking in order to do it.
I assume you would object to course material which taught my bullets, yes?
The majority of people in the United States identify as Christian
Homosexual acts are forbidden, and considered immoral (sinful) by the majority of Christian denominations
The Bible explictly condemns homosexual activity
Only one out of the fifty states actually permits same-sex marriage, and the history of that state’s law was changed by the courts, not the legislature
They are factual, but they invite a conclusion that you don’t like. And it’s a conclusion that is wrong for a public school to advance, because it relies heavily on religious teaching.
Equally wrong is to permit a course that invites a conclusion you like, based on religious teaching.
NO - Dr. James Dobson didn’t get to use public school time to promote his view. He did it on his own nickel. You don’t get to use public school time to counteract his religious views with your own.
There IS a legal requirement that schools teach religiously neutral material.
If a school teaches, “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,” but does not mention that it’s condemned in the Old and New Testament, and that these words are regarded by many as inspired by God, then it’s not a religiously neutral presentation. Even if both of those facts are taught together, it’s not a religiously neutral presentation – where is Islam’s viewpoint? Where is the Jewish point of view? And by that I mean the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform take on the issue, of course.
What Jesus said, or did not say, is simply not material for a school to teach for the lesson that we may infer approbation or prohibition of that behavior. (A history course may well mention Jesus’ teachings for the lesson of how they influenced historical events, of course; it is their placement is a sex-ed course that is highly improper.)
Bricker, how do you feel about the hypothetical I posed earlier, reprinted here for your convenience?
Cite?
I return to my point about evolution, which is obviously not “religiously neutral material”…
“This class is not about religious beliefs, and it’s not for me to discuss what Jesus said or didn’t say. Religious beliefs about homosexuality vary greatly, just as cultural beliefs do. This class is about the factual issues surrounding human sexuality.”
It would not be appropriate to point out that Jesus said nothing - because then you invite the debate wherein the kid responds, “OK, it wasn’t Jesus, but God wrote the Bible, and He said, ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it
is an abomination.’” What then? Does the teacher discuss the fact that Leviticus ALSO says that a wizard shall be stoned to death and eating rattlesnake meat is an abomination? You see the point? Either you permit public schools to teach religion or you don’t; you cannot command them to teach religion the way YOU want it taught.
Bricker, the Bible does not explicitly condemn homosexuality in either Old or New Testaments. That is an interpretative conclusion which is not universal to the denominations who use those books. You need to take that off of your “objective facts” list, it doesn’t belong.
Perhaps you could modify it and say that some Christian and Jewish denominations interpret the bible as condemning homosexual acts but not all of them do and many Christians and Jews would vehemently dispute those interpretations.
I don’t think you have to get into specifics. All you need to do is just say that different people interpret the Bible in different ways, that some people don’t believe in it all, and that it’s not the school’s place to say which view is correct.