Document text
- Subscribe - Contact Us - Rate Card - Place an Ad Archives Revels Classifieds Real Estate Menu Guide Wedding Weather Subscribe Contact Us November 22, 2005 From the RIGHT side Mike Green The loss of innocence Warning: by reading this column you may be exposed to uncomfortable sexual questions. But don’t worry. These are the same questions government school officials felt comfortable asking elementary school students. Just answer “never” or “all the time.” Here’s a teaser (no pun intended): How often do you think about sex? This is just one of many provocative questions posed to students from first to eighth grade by their teachers administering a district-approved survey. I assume the question implies, “sex with children,” rather than “sex with adults,” since it was asked of children. It seems inappropriate to ask adults how often they think about having sex with children. Unfortunately, it is adults who concocted and administered sexual surveys targeting elementary students in the Palmdale School District in California, sidestepping parental notification with a misleading notice that failed to mention that students would be asked to weigh in on how much they “think about touching other people’s private parts,” in addition to a number of surreal sexual questions, including the frequency of “touching” oneself and “thinking about sex,” that would never be considered appropriate discussion in the teacher’s lounge. “So, Ms. Venus, when you come into the teacher’s lounge in between your theater arts classes, does it make you feel uncomfortable when I touch myself?” “Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Valentine, I think about sex all the time and enjoy touching myself as well.” If it isn’t good for teachers to sexually survey themselves ad nauseam, or discuss sexually-charged personal issues among a group of adults on a school campus, where did the idea come from that children were fair game … and to what end, and what purpose? Sit down, shut up and listen! … said the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to parents across the country earlier this month. A group of parents whose children were subjected to a plethora of sex questions in the Palmdale School District sued and lost in federal district court. The appeal came before the three-panel judgeship of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Judge Stephen Reinhart wrote the unanimous opinion of the court, which agreed with the lower court that had struck down the parent’s case against the school district. The bottom line, according to Reinhart: “We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children …” (emphasis Reinhart’s) Thus, the court deemed the school also had the right to provide sexual content to its students as it saw fit. But the court wasn’t finished: “We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.” Do you hear that sound? It’s the sound of school officials laughing as parents are stripped of any rights to protect their kids from government-imposed morally offensive information administered through tests or curriculum … even if that information specifically opposes the religious beliefs of the students. In other words, the government has a right to say what it will to any student within its jurisdiction. And if the message of the school tells a student that his or her religious belief is wrong, the parents have no recourse. Do you feel like “washing yourself because you feel dirty inside?” As parents in Medford react to the new sex education curriculum adopted by the district, which includes instruction on contraception and condom use, one pastor of a large congregation expressed his discontent. Peter-John Courson of Applegate Christian Fellowship specifically objected to the instruction on contraception targeting young teens. “Thirteen is not the time to introduce contraception, but to protect our children’s innocence,” Courson was quoted in the Mail Tribune (Nov. 19). With apologies to the pastor, many Ashlanders would consider Courson a kook. But, I think he’s right … which may not help him win any popularity battles. In addition to Courson’s concern, the underlying message of the sex education instruction in public schools has more to do with dilution of the “ only within boundaries of marriage ” precept designed by God, and promotion of the “ sex without consequences/free love ” ideology established by those who consider themselves to be liberals or “progressives.” The entire issue has truly boiled down to pro-God versus anti-God . In Ashland, where the “anything goes” philosophy has been taken to the extreme at times, teenagers readily admit to attending parties at posh residences where alcohol and drugs are easily obtained, made accessible by adults. Sex is an activity many teens engage in, some with their parents’ full knowledge and consent; and according to the rumor mill, it is not uncommon to witness teen girls putting on “lesbian shows” in an effort to titillate onlookers by “making out” at school dances and other public venues. Upon close examination, we can clearly see the by-products of a culture that promotes an attitude of permissive sex to children. Out of the so-called “sex education” movement has grown sex-centered teen organizations on public school campuses that are identified according to sexual markers (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc). Even before the children are of the minimum “ age of consent ” they are encouraged to identify with their sexual desires and act upon them. The very existence of those school organizations force parents like Courson, and others who attend Christian churches, to explain to our own kids why the same school authority figures who teach our children also condone types of activities and relationships (both heterosexual and homosexual) explicitly forbidden by God. Even in the more conservative public schools, the socialization of students is a primary goal. Dances and other forms of social affairs are part and parcel of the school experience, set aside from academic studies. These events endeavor to offer students an environment in which they may “socialize” under the inherent pressures of pairing off, getting close, and establishing intimate contact of some sort with members of the same or opposite sex. For many students who struggle with the juxtaposition of home and religious instruction versus everything they see, hear and experience in the world around them, the notion that teachers, administrators, public leaders, and society at large is accepting of the very things Christian churches teach against is a conundrum. And perhaps this is one of the reasons Courson is praying for guidance in his pending decision to maintain his children’s attendance in public schools or extract them from the place where parents have no legal authority over what the kids are exposed to. I applaud Courson’s consideration of pulling his children out of public schools. My wife and I placed our five-year-old in private instruction like so many other parents that have flooded private schools to overflowing their capacities. Unfortunately, not all Christians are united as one in the instruction of children regarding sex, relationships and marriage, despite very clear and explicit teaching of this very issue by the one source Christians rely on as the infallible Word of God … the Bible. Nevertheless, while the church is divided against itself, the government schools have taken a united stand. Across the country curriculum designed to instruct students about the pros and cons of sexual interaction have trumped the parent’s rights to determine the course of their child’s understanding and perspective regarding relationships. Couched within presumably benign curriculum is the underlying message: Age-appropriate consensual sex is okay, as long as proper precautions are taken to safeguard against disease and pregnancy. Age-appropriate sex falls under the guidelines of state and federal age of consent laws, which are arbitrarily set and can be arbitrarily moved. Of course, many of the public schools offering sex education do also provide some instruction in abstinence. But then again, Planned Parenthood, which leads the fight for abortion, morning-after pills, condom use, and teen instruction on alternative sexual lifestyles, would make the same claim. Even so-called “abstinence” information is merely a small concession by a secularist society toward a religious populace that fears its children are being influenced to believe that sex outside of marriage is acceptable to God. There really is no reason to concede any ground to the religious, or attempt to disguise the true intentions of the pro-choice crowd. Let’s face it. Pro-choice has won. Its agenda isn’t solely about expanding the opportunity for abortion to every young woman and teen girl. It has succeeded in sexualizing our society in every aspect. Today, the choice to live sexually immoral lifestyles is perceived as equal to, and in some cases preferable to, the decision to abide by moral guidelines. Pro-choicers own the courts. Today, even as the district and appeals courts beat down any attempts by concerned parents to determine what their children can and cannot be exposed to in schools, the broader movement seeks to ensure the protection of the most sacred of all pro-choice beliefs … Roe v. Wade. Since that 1973 landmark decision by the Supreme Court, more than 44 million abortions have been conducted in this country. Many would-be mothers who made a choice to engage in a morally forbidden activity (sex outside of marriage) and subsequently chose to eliminate the natural consequences of such activity (pregnancy) freely decided to have most of those unnecessary abortions. Thus, the term “choice” is most applicable. The pro-choicers own the schools. The “right” to a medically safe abortion was fought for by millions of women whose initial fight stemmed from a desire to engage in any sexual lifestyle they chose, free from criticism and consequences. That battle was led by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and the author of, “No Gods, No Masters.” Today, Planned Parenthood leads the battle in schools to instill in the minds of students, from elementary through high school, that sex is a free expression that should not be saddled with religious oppression. Under the guise of “health curriculum instruction” the messages that supplant religious ideology and endorse secular perceptions that “all relationships are equal” can be clearly heard. Pro-choicers own the streets. In every direction there is evidence of a society that has sexualized its children. Music, movies, video games and other media offer wanton suggestive imagery and messages that consistently target adolescents and teens. The fashion industry blatantly promotes sex to teens. Walk into Rogue Valley Mall and you can stroll along the S&M aisle of one chain store that targets teens. Along that aisle is also a wide variety of lingerie that would put Victoria’s Secret to shame. Every piece of clothing, music and accessory items in that store is designed to deliver a strong message. The age of the average customer is under 18. Leaving that extreme example, one may walk into any number of mainstream retail clothing outlets to find halter tops, mini skirts and high heels for five-year-old girls. In fact, parents are hard-pressed to find clothing for young girls that have any notion of the concept of modesty. The pro-choicers even own some churches. Last week I attended a public forum in an Ashland church. A Planned Parenthood public relations person, who was one of a three-person panel promoting the same message, led that gathering. A table was set up with a ton of Planned Parenthood paraphernalia and promotional items, including one invitation to stop by and receive a free bag full of condoms (a generous offer indeed). There was no message of abstinence. The bulk of the time I was there, the focus was on protecting Roe v. Wade by protesting against president Bush’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. It seemed to me that several legalities that apply to most all nonprofit organizations regarding political campaigning were flouted, but then again, pro-choicers own the legal system. Across the country, churches have opened doors and extended invitations to those who choose to indulge in any lifestyle they desire. That is the nature of Christian churches and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Christians follow a mandate to allow the whole world to “come as you are.” The misunderstanding that occurs with some who come as they are is the notion that they believe they can remain as they are forever. Unfortunately, instead of the individuals changing their minds, hearts and lives to follow Christ, in too many cases it has been the church that has changed its doctrines, its philosophy, its focus and allegiance, in an effort to accommodate the “progressive” whims of those who deem themselves “spiritual” but not religious. The results of the pro-choicers choosing to indulge in forbidden lifestyles and teaching children that such choices are acceptable is that surveys have been designed in order to determine why children, teens, and young adults are having such a difficult time growing up in today’s society. The natural questions a sex-obsessed culture would seek to know the answers to would obviously pertain to the sexual thoughts of children. In a recent “ Healthy Teens ” survey conducted among both middle- and high-schoolers, Ashland had the distinction of leading the way in a variety of very unhealthy categories. But we should not lose sight of the fact that under the guise of “health” education, surveys seek to know how much sex children and teens are engaging in and how much alcohol and drugs they consume. It is interesting to note that the survey was not concerned with what the students ate or the frequency of meals or the amount of exercise or the number of injuries or anything in which a physician might have some interest. Of the 15 “health” survey categories given to high school juniors, eight of them pertained to sex. The rest addressed tobacco, drug and alcohol use. Once again, the focal point of the issue at hand has been clearly defined. Ironically, it is the government, which has overruled parental authority, that campaigns to parents to talk to our kids about drugs and sex. But then again, the government promotes parents as both the problem and the panacea, pretending all would be well if we would only “talk” to our kids. And in “talking” to our kids, it is assumed they would be better equipped to make better choices. I guess it doesn’t matter what we talk to them about. Maybe we should ask them some of the same questions they get asked in school surveys? “How often do you think about sex when you don’t want to?” The inherent problem in leaving children and teens to make good “choices” after presumably being given all relevant information devoid of moral direction, is that even children and teens who have knowledge of what is right and wrong often witness adults walking daily down the wrong path. The inherent hypocrisy within our culture belies the notion that children can be raised effectively without close adherence to religious beliefs. Every adolescent and teen that has ever been told they cannot do something instinctively wonders ‘why?’ since they see adults throughout this society engaging in the very behavior those same adults prohibit to teens. Eventually, growing children will confront our hypocrisy and force the unprepared adult to mumble something stupid like, “you aren’t old enough yet.” With that in mind, every teen can hardly wait until they get “old enough” to do all of the forbidden things they are encouraged to do by every marketing media available (operated by adults, of course). And the sad truth is that they do not actually wait until the “magical” age of 18, when they are supposed to suddenly have the power to make “mature” decisions that they did have the power to make 30 days prior to their 18th birthday. Without a moral compass and an environment of support, encouragement and protection, children will succumb to temptations and pressures of society into which they seek to assimilate … or “fit in.” Society does not seek to build moral character, endorse strong moral character, or even reward it very often. Society seeks continually to tear down, berate, and emasculate those who abstain from the flow or swim against the tide in a cesspool of evil. Public schools do not typically offer an environment conducive to building strong moral character. That isn’t to say that students of strong moral character haven’t come out of public schools. They have. But that is in spite of the difficulties they face. In fact, the statistics provided by school officials in this region exposes the consequences of permissive environments that many students are exposed to both at home and at school. According to the Healthy Teens survey: — On average, more than one-quarter of high school juniors surveyed in schools around the county smoked cigarettes in the 30 days preceding the survey. — On average nearly half of them had consumed alcohol in the same time period. — Nearly one-third had been involved in binge drinking. — More than one-quarter had smoked marijuana. — An average of nearly ten percent had been involved in using other illegal drugs. — Almost half of the 16 to 17-year-olds surveyed had already lost their sexual virginity. — An overwhelming majority of those surveyed were sexually active within 3 months of taking the survey. — Nearly one-quarter had engaged in consuming drugs or alcohol during their last episode of sexual intercourse. — Most admitted to using condoms and birth controls during intercourse. The public schools do not have an answer for the rampant out-of-control use of illegal drugs and alcohol among its students. It has no answer for sexual involvement, other than prophylactics for partial disease and pregnancy prevention, and abortion for parenthood prevention. Considering the high rate of disease spread through intercourse and the number of abortions annually (more than one million), either the pro-choicers are miserable failures and their philosophy is a complete and utter disaster … or their cleverly disguised ideal is working magnificently and the indulgence of our nation’s youth in destructive behavior is a clear sign that there has been a national adoption of the Planned Parenthood permissive philosophy promoted primarily through the public schools. A philosophy promoted by the public schools? Yeah, the same public schools that have the government-given right to teach our children anything despite the protest of parents. The same public schools that campaign to keep kids who have been deprived of a good education imprisoned within the schools while lobbyists wage a political battle to obtain some unknown level of funding that ought to magically fix the schools once received. The same public schools that cast aspersions upon successful home-schooled children because home-schoolers have not been indoctrinated into the public school “socialization” experiment that is regarded as the measure of how valuable public schools are. The same public schools that provide disparate levels in quality of student education between schools within the same district. The same public schools that provide a wide variety of social groups into which students seek to “fit in.” It is time the public schools and the churches stopped pretending they are not at war. They have been embroiled in battle ever since the Supreme Court removed the ability of the schools to teach morals by banning Bibles. Subsequently, the Supreme Court went further to remove organized prayer , which has been interpreted by some districts as a complete ban. The school and the church went to war against one another the moment the school sought refuge from the influence of the church through the Supreme Court. Today, that same judicial system has made a remarkable statement to every parent. If your child is enrolled in a public school, you have no right to determine what he or she will or will not be exposed to. That statement was not a shot across the bow. It was not a warning of any sort. It was the final blow. It was the sound of an executioner’s firing squad. The pro-choicers have won. Have a nice day. To respond to this column send email to [email protected] . Only those responses containing the writer's name, city and phone number (for verification purposes only) will appear on our site. Mike Green is an award-winning columnist and author of, " The WHOLE truth about the U.S. War on Terror: answers to every question you never knew to ask ." ( www.thetruthaboutterror.com ) From the RIGHT Side is a web-only column published by the Daily Tidings. Letters to the Editor and Guest Forums should be e-mailed in text-only format to [email protected]. Please include your address and a daytime phone number where you can be reached for confirmation. Submissions cannot have run in any other publication. Letters are limited to 250 words, Guest Forums are limited to 600 words, and may be edited for length, content and clarity. DailyTidings.com Home Page Archives | Revels | Classifieds | Real Estate Guide | Weather | Subscribe | Contact Us Copyright 2005 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers All Rights Reserved Deep Muscle Stimulator Ceramic Piggy Banks FREE Entertainment Guide Women's & Men's Slippers Accelerate Weightloss Products Backpacks Generic Viagra Vegas Travel Guide Search Engine Optimization Sportsbook Absinthe Supply Student Loans Hotel & Airline Reservations African Safari Hammocks Helzberg Diamonds Online Casinos Community Bonus Casino King of Spirits ink cartridges Mortgage Calculator Security Systems Mailing Lists Click Here Advertisement .:Advertisements:. Site Search: RESOURCES - Mail Tribune News - ODOT Road Cams