Wednesday, July 14, 2010

I don't practice the religion of secularism

The talented blogger Magister Christianus has a post up on St. Augustine and sex education, in which he comments on Montana's new guidelines:

Then there is the sheery hypocrisy of teaching sixth graders that no one has the right to impose values on another, despite that this very curriculum does so by normalizing homosexual behavior and the use of contraceptives.

I have said time and time again that homeschooling or enrolling children in Christian schools is not about avoiding evil, for that is impossible. It is about attempting to educate our children with the full story. However even-handed and non-biased this curriculum may sound to some, it is blatantly anti-Christian and carries with it the bullet-proof vest of being "tolerant" and "enlightened," for what parent monster would not want his or her child to know the truth? The problem is with the assumption that this curriculum is presenting the truth. It assumes that the we live in a completely physical, causally-closed universe. In other words, it assumes that there is no such thing as mind, consciousness, soul, or spirit. I have no doubt that many involved with this curriculum would stand up and say, "No such thing!" Yet to deny the flawed assumptions foundational to this curriculum is to reveal the degree to which one is blind to what one one has accepted. If the universe is purely physical and causally closed, then there can be no non-physical agent capable of acting on anything, let alone having authority. And if there is no supervening authority, i.e. God, then humans can say and do as they please with impunity. Of course, we may say and do as we please even with God on His throne, but we cannot do so with impunity if He reigns. [Links in original--E.M.]

Read the whole thing--but be warned; the Montana guidelines for sex education are horrific, and, ironically considering they will be taught to young children, probably not safe for work.

Magister's point, that Christians may not be able to cooperate much longer with secular schools--is a good one. We've gone far, far past our public schools being religiously neutral, and much, much closer to them being actively hostile to religion, to religious beliefs and to the students formed by them. This is because our schools are now teaching what is, if not a bona fide religion, at least a philosophy; and in that philosophy there is no room for God, for transcendent meaning, or for morality that is anything other than utilitarianism.

If Christian parents complain, for instance, that they don't wish their children to be instructed in the methods of homosexual sex, they will be told (patronizingly) that this information is vital to their children's health. The presumption that a healthy child must know the proper methods of engaging "safely" in various homosexual sex acts in order to remain healthy is not a neutral idea; it is a religious one, and the religion is secularism. But because that religion has become our national source of religious and philosophical ideas, all of its conclusions are held to as a kind of gospel-truth by those who teach them.

Objectively speaking, there is no need whatsoever to indoctrinate 100% of all school children into how to commit sodomy or other homosexual sex acts. Even if we eschew traditional morality and virtue altogether as the secularists do, we still are left with the fact that only approximately 4% of the students may ever need this information, since the homosexual population of our nation has been consistently measured at approximately 4%. It is clearly a waste of time to spend classroom time and resources (including the extra condoms and dental dams necessary when instructing all students in the notion of "safe homosexual sex" acts) for information that, at best, 4% of them will ever need; it is especially a waste of time to do so in an age of Internet communication, when the same-sex attracted student will find it easier and more individualized to seek the information anonymously on the Internet. Then, too, there is the problem that scientifically speaking it is a misnomer to consider condom-clad sex acts to be "safe," since even in heterosexual acts the condom may fail, and condom failure is known to be greater when the sex acts involve sodomy or other same-sex maneuvers.

So the secularists' insistence that all children must be instructed in the proper, "safe" way to engage in homosexual sex acts is actually a waste of time and money for the vast majority of them--for the 96% who will never need this information, and for the 4% who do use it but who are still not necessarily "safe" in their activities. But the secularists still do insist: it's so terribly vital for all school children to be indoctrinated in the proper methods of donning prophylactics in the course of homosexual sex acts that even the children of devout Christians may not be excused from these lessons, lest their health suffer.

I don't practice the religion of secularism. I don't share their absurd, anti-scientific beliefs or their fanaticism. That's one of the reasons I choose to avoid their schools altogether.

1 comment:

Barbara C. said...

Ironically most of the information in these sex ed. classes is scientifically incorrect or incomplete. All of these classes really pass on a socio-political agenda not true safety facts. I can't recommend Dr. Miriam Grossman's "You're Teaching My Child What??" enough on this issue.