Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
March 26, 2009
Sex Ed Is About Indoctrination
Hooking young Americans on a particular view of sex has always been bound up with an entire slate of socio-political biases and cultural preferences. Ultimately, it's always about indoctrination:
When Rep. Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, D-Woonsocket, asked [Rep. Donna Walsh, D-Charlestown,] what she would consider age appropriate material for a kindergartner, Walsh deferred the question to Dr. Midge Sabatini, of the Department of Health, who said that instruction would include topics such as hygiene, the potential dangers of talking to strangers, family values, family roles and "cultural diversity."
Why do I suspect (for instance) that "family values" don't involve the assertion that sex should be reserved for marriage and that marriage is the merger of a man and a woman with a presumption of a procreative family? There is a concerted agenda behind this push deriving from a class of people who've been striving for decades to impose their worldview on everybody by the mechanisms of government.
That the push leads with sex reminds me of that scene in Pinocchio in which a man lures wayward boys to an island on the promise that they can do whatever they wish once there — the catch being, of course, that their behavior would turn them into salable donkeys.
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
I’d like to see what phrases like “cultural diversity” really mean in the context of education. Is there something wrong with saying ‘racism’? I also hate when the phrase ‘family values’ is used anywhere as it most often applies to a specific worldview being imposed. I don’t think the mechanisms of government should be used to impose a worldview either and feel that the Pinocchio scene is a good analogy. That being said, I also would not support the mechanisms of government be used to assert moral judgments on pre-marital sex or homosexuality. They should be “informed” or “educated” – and certainly told that the best and only way to 100% eliminate unwanted pregnancy is to abstain. But the moral judgments should be out of the government and in the parents court.
Posted by: msteven at March 26, 2009 12:53 PMIt's nice to see that in this era of fiscal meltdown, we're all still capable of going Butterfly McQueen over sex ed.
Posted by: rhody at March 26, 2009 4:38 PMI prefer to look at this as a sign of normalcy.
What's your implication, Rhody? That difficult times require conservatives to sit back and allow liberals to advance their goals?
Posted by: Justin Katz at March 26, 2009 7:23 PMCome on Justin. What good is a crisis if you can't use it to obfuscate an across the board power grab?
Posted by: EMT at March 27, 2009 11:23 AMIssues like raising a fuss over sex ed and gay marriage are effectice distractions for the most conservative of us to use when their answers to such crucial issues as war and the economy have been proven wrong.
Posted by: rhody at March 27, 2009 5:10 PMProblem is, the people of Ohio stopped buying those goods last year.
rhody, it's the left that has proposed changes to the health curricula (and to marriage definition). Asking questions about, or opposing, those changes is somehow creating a distraction?
Posted by: mikeinri at March 27, 2009 10:20 PMIs there, or should there be, a political agenda, in teaching a young child what a bad touch is?
Posted by: rhody at March 27, 2009 10:31 PMAre we going to let the debate over SSM leave our young kids vulnerable to predators of either sex? No matter where you stand on SSM, it's foolish to link it to children's safety.
Rhody,
Sometimes I think you a fair dealer, and sometimes I think you're just spinning the partisan line. Folks have cited specific language of concern, and they were not of the bad-touch nature.
If you wish to decry the linkage of partisan agendas, you're arguing with the wrong side.
Posted by: Justin Katz at March 28, 2009 8:10 AMrhody, talk about distractions! No one wants to leave children vulnerable; such issues are already addressed in our schools.
When Rep. Ajello calls those who disagree "ignorant and insulting" as she did in the ProJo, it appears she's avoiding meaningful debate. That's a distraction, and RIers should be worried.
Posted by: mikeinri at March 28, 2009 9:27 AMMike, I actually agree with you. Edie should've used the words "pandering to ignorant fears" instead.
Posted by: rhody at March 28, 2009 1:56 PMLet's not insult the people (even Rep. Palumbo, though I know the temptation is difficult to avoid). Insult the ideas. Insult the fears. I'd just urge the Democratic representative from Cranston to, with all due respect, stop pandering.
You too, Congressman Frank. Even people Justice Scalia's age have overcome ignorant fears. Don't give up on him too soon.