Ed Stevens is a contributing writer to Leavenworth St. He is a self-described, “Retired geezer; paleo-retro-apocalypto-
By Ed Stevens
I have followed with interest the recent hoo-ha concerning efforts by some of our more liberal Unicameralites (Sullivan, Morfeld and others) to introduce, by statute, something called “comprehensive sex education” (CSE) into the curricula of Nebraska public schools.
So, my interest piqued, I began to research the whole subject of CSE and have found surprisingly little objective research on the subject. There are scores of “scientific” articles available, both pro and con, but very few of them come from truly objective, non-biased sources. Those articles extolling CSE tend to be from authors directly associated with left-leaning groups such as Planned Parenthood, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), Advocate for Youth, etc., while those which favor abstinence only programs tend to emanate from organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, Focus On The Family, and others with a known conservative bent.
What is clear is that CSE is a program of stunningly explicit and provocative materials and information introduced as early as kindergarten and lacking even a hint of moral distinction between sexual behaviors, from the traditional biblically-based to the wildly aberrant. Their motto seems to be “If it feels good, it’s OK to do it.”
Proponents of CSE claim that their paradigm will dramatically reduce teen pregnancy, abortion rates and sexually transmitted disease, and, for all I know, promote world peace, and halt global warming. On the other side are those who assert that “abstinence only” sex education (based largely in the home) is the best way. So CSE, it seems, promises that you can have all the sex you want and avoid all those inconveniences like pregnancies and Chlamydia, while the abstinence folks say “Don’t Do The Deed should be your creed.” Guess which one is more appealing to the average teener just chock full of raging hormones?
So who is right? Well … neither … and both. Please note that I take no position regarding the relative efficacy of either methodology, and for a very good reason – there is precious little verifiably objective information available – for either case. In an ideal world, both, if practiced to perfection, would likely have somewhat positive outcomes, but to focus only on the relative merits of these different approaches is to miss what is really going on here. The CSE initiative is ostensibly about the health and well-being of our youth, but it is no more about reducing teen pregnancies and preventing STD’s than it is about jiggeries and pokeries. It is about establishing yet another beach head for the inexorable progressive agenda. Make no mistake – liberals seek hegemony – political, cultural and intellectual hegemony, and no aspect of human society is too insignificant to escape their “helpful” ministrations. And they are good at it. To grasp the significance of this mindset, consider the words of William F. Buckley, who understood liberals better than they understand themselves; years ago, in his rightly famous “Up From Liberalism”, he noted:
(Liberals) “… are men and women who tend to believe that the human being is perfectible and social progress predictable, and that the instrument for effecting the two is reason; that truths are transitory and empirically determined; that equality is desirable and attainable through the action of state power; that social and individual differences, if they are not rational, are objectionable and should be scientifically eliminated; that all peoples and societies should strive to organize themselves upon a rationalist and scientific paradigm.”
No more coherent or pertinent description of liberalism has ever been penned – simply stated, it tells us these folks believe that with enough interference from the state, everyone can be herded into their corral. We are all fodder for their ever-grinding mill. In the words of educational psychologist and child psychiatrist Miriam Grossman,
groups promoting CSE “… are not about preventing disease. Sex ed is a social movement. Its goal is to change society. The primary goal of groups like SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, and Advocates for Youth is to promote sexual freedom and to rid society of its Judeo–Christian taboos and restrictions.”
As just one of many instances of the hidden agenda of these groups, consider the following statement from Dr. Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood and first president of SIECUS:
“A new stage of evolution is breaking across the horizon and the task of educators is to prepare children to step into that new world. To do this, they must pry children away from old views and values, especially from biblical and other traditional forms of sexual morality – for religious laws or rules about sex were made on the basis of ignorance.”
Judeo-Christian based ethics and behaviors are directly and direly inimical to the entire liberal agenda; liberals seek secularism, moral relativism and a pseudo-rationalistic world-view, for only in such an environment can their arid philosophy find root. So the next time you hear Senators Sullivan and Morfeld and their posturing cohorts crowing about “comprehensive sex education”, remember that what they are really doing is digging under the moral back fence of most Nebraskans.