Tag Archives: Education

News

Teacher union promotes sexualizing children at United Nations conference

3 Comments

Robert Stacy McCain is covering a very strange story about how the United Nations is promoting sex to children. (H/T Hot Air)

Over the long-term, I think it is probably better for a child to learn about marriage than sex, because they shouldn’t be alone and childless for the last half of their lives. Instead of learning how to have sex outside of marriage, so that they can use people and be used by people for temporary fun, it might be a better idea to research what challenges are encountered in a long-term stable marriage, what character and skills a spouse should have, and what policies and laws promote marriage.

The only thing that I think sexualization of children will do is raise social costs, increase government, and break the bonds between children and parents. That will just open up children to being influenced more by government and less by their parents. Furthermore, I guess some people who are perverts and predators would also benefit from sexualizing children. They would be less likely to be exposed to moral judgments and shame if young people are indoctrinated to think that perversion is normal, and more likely to find lots of children to have sex with. So I guess that this is the agenda that teacher unions, the United Nations, and the Democrats who fund both of them are pushing.

Anyway, here is the first story from Robert Stacy McCain.

Excerpt:

“Experts” have determined that what’s wrong with our education system is that kids aren’t taught enough about sex:

“Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education,” Diane Schneider told the audience at a [United Nations conference] panel on combating homophobia and transphobia. Schneider, representing the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US, advocated for more “inclusive” sex education in US schools. . . . She claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt-out.

Comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity,” Schneider proclaimed, “and we must make these issues a part of every middle and high-school student’s agenda.” . . .

A panel sponsored in part by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) advocated for “comprehensive sex education” not only as a tool to combat “gender oppression,” but also as the key to achieving all of the Millennium Development Goals.

Diane Schneider has done work for the National Education Association, and she is also employed by the gay rights group GLSEN, which promotes sex to children. The NEA is the largest teacher union in the country, and they basically own the Democrat party. The sexualization of children is part of the Democrat agenda. They don’t like marriage – they don’t like parents. They want children to be having sex. They want children to reject the morality of their parents, especially fathers. And they don’t like “heterosexism”. Traditional marriage is “heterosexist”. Only feminists use words like “gender oppression”. This is a feminist initiative.

Keep in mind that the teaching profession is dominated by women. Around 80% of classroom teachers are women. The unions are likewise dominated by women at all levels. So why are women pushing this agenda into classrooms? Why is there no revolt to teaching sex outside of marriage to children? Is it because women do not want children who engage in risky, immoral and dangerous activities to feel badly about it? Is it because children resent fathers setting moral boundaries on children? Is it because they think that if everyone sins, then no one will be able to make any judgments, and then no one will feel bad? Is it because they think that the problems that result from risky behavior should just be solved by taking someone else’s money, instead of making better choices?

Isn’t it weird that single, unmarried women who vote Democrat think that they will one day get married and stay married for their whole lives? I find that weird. I am not sure how encouraging men to have sex with women they have NO INTENTION of staying with for life will make men into husbands. I think that feminists think that some charming, loyal, faithful man is going to come along and protect and provide for them and love them into their old age and raise children with them. But then I look at stories like this and I wonder – are women who vote Democrat capable of linking the things they are voting for to their own plans for their lives? Or do they just expect to degrade themselves with others until they turn 30, knock out a couple of fatherless children at taxpayer expense (IVF) and then go on welfare for the rest of their lives with no man ever giving them a second look. That seems to be what will happen. Men don’t marry women who cannot be faithful, who cannot be unselfish, and who cannot stop voting more and more of their money out of their wallets.

McCain writes:

Of all the problems affecting the world, America’s leading organization of teachers is urging the United Nations “to combat heterosexism and gender conformity” by teaching “oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms”? Because that’s exactly what’s needed by impoverished villagers in Bolivia, Botswana, Belize and Burkina Faso.

Meanwhile, you will be pleased to learn, in her official statement to the U.N. conference, Melanne Verveer, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues (and “one of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ’s closest associates“), devoted separate sections to “Women and Green Jobs” and “Gender and Climate Change.”

So that’s the “women’s agenda” the United States is now promoting worldwide: Orgasms for kids, green jobs and fighting climate change.

You can find out more about Diane in McCain’s first post.

But there’s more in the second post, which talks about Girl Scouts and the United Nations.

Excerpt:

Pundette was writing about the latest United Nations outrage — teaching kids masturbation and oral sex to combat “heterosexism” — and in the process linked to this U.N.-related story you might have missed:

The World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides hosted a no-adults-welcome panel at the United Nations [in March 2010] where Planned Parenthood was allowed to distribute a brochure entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot.” . . .
The brochure claims, “Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse… But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!” . . .
The Girl Scouts, along with the YWCA have been co-moderating a young women’s caucus that included an “Intergenerational Conversation” side event on “universal access” and “reproductive health.” One recent Girl Scout project “aims at securing the right of women, men and adolescents aged between ten and twenty-five, to better reproductive and sexual health.”

If this is what women want, then they need to realize that this is mutually exclusive to marriage. You can spend the first 30 years of your like as a left-wing anti-family activist and then blame men for not marrying you and taking care of you in your old age. Women are doing this to themselves, and man-blaming is not going to fix the situation. Feminism and the sexual revolution isn’t something that men pushed on women. It’s something that women push on themselves. Just because they don’t like it doesn’t mean that they didn’t choose it.

News

Germany puts parents in jail if they pull their kids out of sex education

Leave a comment

From Alliance Defense Fund.

Excerpt:

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys representing two German parents filed an emergency order Thursday with the European Court of Human Rights, calling for the mother’s immediate prison release. ADF attorneys filed an appeal on the parents’ behalf last year asking the ECHR to uphold national and international law against the German government’s unlawful incarceration and fines in violation of parental rights.

Heinrich and Irene Wiens chose to keep their four children from attending a mandatory play and four school days of “sexual education” that taught students an extremely permissive view of sexuality. For this they were fined and then sentenced to more than six weeks in prison for refusing to pay. The father already served his prison term. Both parents contend that the programs oppose their Christian beliefs and that forcing their children’s participation is unlawful. ADF has four similar cases before the ECHR, as Irene Wiens is the 10th Christian parent imprisoned.

“Parents, not the government, are the ones ultimately responsible for making educational choices for their children, and jailing them for standing on this universal right is simply unconscionable,” said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska. “Irene Wiens was well within her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights to opt to teach her children a view of sexuality that is in accord with her own religious beliefs, instead of sending them to four days of classes and an interactive play that she found to be objectionable. These types of cases are crucial battles in the effort to keep bad decisions concerning parental rights overseas from being adopted by American courts.”

In June 2006, the Wiens’ objected to their children’s attendance at both a mandatory stage play and four school days of so-called “sexual education” classes. Both parents believed the programs contradicted their sincerely held religious beliefs, as they and their four children are active in the Christian Baptist Church. The Wiens’ kept their children at home during the programs and instead instructed them in their own Christian values on sexuality.  The parents were subsequently sentenced by a lower court in June 2008 and both were fined a total of 2,340 Euros (approximately $3,250 U.S.), which they refused to pay on legal and moral grounds. As a result, Heinrich Wiens served 43 days in prison from August 26 to October 6, and Irene Wiens is still serving her 43-day sentence in jail.

School officials allege that the purpose of the compulsory play “Mein Köper Gehört Mir” (My Body Is Mine) was to introduce preventative measures for sexual abuse amongst children. Yet ADF attorneys argue that the play and “sexual education” lessons also promoted a very permissive view of sex and sexuality that strongly contradicts the Wiens’ Christian beliefs. Also, the Wiens’ contend that no scientific proof exists that the programs deter sexual abuse, but that they rather teach children to become sexually active by instructing them to observe their inner feelings of sexuality, ultimately teaching that if something feels good sexually, then it is an acceptable practice.

I really resent paying for teachers to indoctrinate children with their views of sexuality. Shouldn’t I get to keep my money and choose my school? What is the argument for me paying the government directly and taking whatever they give me? I don’t want these people or their sex education. Let me decide what’s best for my future children. I should be allowed to spend the money I earn on whatever I want. I don’t see why I should have to pay for something that doesn’t meet the needs of my future children.

Polemics

How the science teachers lobby misrepresents intelligent design

Leave a comment

From Evolution News.

Excerpt:

Science Teachers Association (NSTA), which stands alongside the rest of the Darwin lobby in holding that neo-Darwinian evolution should be taught in a one-sided, pro-evolution-only fashion.

[…]But the Darwin lobby is smart. While it is trying to ban and censor the views of its opponents, the Darwin lobby has a particular narrative which tries to paint its opponents as the censors and the extremists. The narrative goes something like this (my paraphrase): ‘Dark forces of intelligent design and creationism are seeking to ban evolution from public schools and then force their religious beliefs into the science classroom. We must stand against censorship and religious agendas, so we must fight their agenda at any cost. Stand with us, the guardians of freedom of thought and the First Amendment.’

[…]The article goes on to cover recent debates in Texas over teaching evolution. The reality, of course, is that NO leading Darwin-critics in Texas sought try to censor evolution. Evolution is still a required part of the curriculum in Texas, and the new TEKS that continue to teach evolution were eagerly adopted by the Texas State Board of Education members who were skeptics of neo-Darwinian evolution.

McKee’s strategy is thus one of the oldest in the books: deflect away from the fact that she herself advocates an extreme position by painting her opponents as extremists.

The reality is that leading groups that doubt neo-Darwinian evolution (like Discovery Institute) strongly oppose any attempts to ban evolution or remove it from the curriculum in schools. We also oppose teaching creationism in the science classroom because it’s a religious viewpoint. As for ID, we feel it’s science and constitutional to teach, but we want the debate over ID to be a scientific one and not a political one, so we oppose attempts to push ID into public schools. Instead, we think that public schools should simply teach the scientific evidence both for and against neo-Darwinian evolution.

So where does that leave us? Leading Darwin-critics aren’t seeking to introduce creationism or ID into public schools, and they would vehemently oppose attempts to ban evolution. Rather, they seek to increase coverage of evolution by teaching both the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism.

The Darwin lobby wants only the pro-Darwin-only viewpoint taught. They want to censor any science that challenges neo-Darwinian evolution.

The whole article is good to read, and especially this picture that summarizes their view and my view.

It’s important to understand that conservative pro-ID people like me are not trying to get rid of evolution. We want it taught as the best available theory that naturalists can invent after their faith commitment that the universe is eternal and matter is all that there is. And then we want the scientific evidence against evolution taught. That’s it. Period. Teach the controversy. Don’t distort the evidence to fit the pre-supposition of naturalism. Teach the evidence that the universe had a beginning, and that life exhibits characteristics of information. If nature is hostile to naturalism, then so much the worse for naturalists. Leave religion (naturalism) out of the classroom, and go where the evidence leads.