Of course you know that there are liberal forces in this great nation of ours who are bent on forcing sex onto children at an ever decreasing age (there are accounts of formal programs of sexualization aimed a children hardly out of kindergarten).  These people are not closeted and working in back alleys, rather these people are perpetrating their horrific programs through the public schools!

If you've been paying attention, you know that all of this is well documented:  Such as the Massachusetts state government training junior high kids in homosexual sex acts; and the ACLU defending in court a formal organization of pedophiles who should, they say, have the right to promote sodomization of young boys; and the professional institutions who attack common morality; and the assault on the innocence of children by the public libraries.

Now here's the latest attempt to sweep the children into the sexual abyss:

Legal Duo Says Schools Should Stop Pushing Abstinence
Tuesday, December 5, 2000
by Catherine Donaldson-Evans

Opening a new front in the religion-in-schools war, two Cornell legal scholars are advocating the removal of abstinence-based sex education from public schools on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment clause requiring separation of church and state. 

Constitutional law professor Gary Simson and Cornell Law graduate Erika Sussman say the government is promoting a religious agenda -- specifically one backed by fundamentalist Christians -- when it allows public schools to teach kids that forgoing sex before marriage is the only way to go. 

"The conformity to the Religious Right position is too much to be an accident," said Simson. "That's one of the telling proofs of a religious agenda in the curriculum." 

How many other ways can these liberals attack the children?  How many ways can they twist and spin common sense?

The above logic is the absolute dumbest thing I've ever heard (well, there are certain law suits in Florida which might be dumber).  If teaching abstinence is teaching religion, then I guess teaching 16-year olds about the dangers of drunk driving is teaching Christianity, since the Bible clearly speaks against drunkenness.

The article continues:

Backers of the abstinence message say the legal minds have gone bonkers. 

Using their logic, the backers insist, anything teachers say that carries a message of morality and goodness would be a no-no in public schools because of possible connections with Christianity and other faiths. 

The scholars' argument, outlined in the latest issue of The Southern California Review of Law and Women's Studies, relies on part of the First Amendment that forbids laws backing religion. That "establishment clause" prohibits the government from passing laws endorsing religion -- or those that have the effect of doing so. 

Of the 69 percent of U.S. public schools with a district-wide policy of teaching sexuality education, about 35 percent require the abstinence-before-marriage model. 

Sussman and Simson looked at the most widely-used abstinence lesson plan in public schools, known as "Sex Respect," which tries to deter teens from premarital sex, abortion and homosexual behavior by highlighting the moral and medical downsides and risks. 

"If premarital sex came in a bottle," the workbook says, "it would probably have to carry a Surgeon General's warning ... There's No Way To Have Premarital Sex Without Hurting Someone." 

The president of Christian Coalition in Alabama, one of the states where the Sex Respect curriculum is particularly popular, said the scholars are mistaking moral lessons for religious ones. 

Said Alabama CC President John Giles: "You can probably dissect every good trait taught by a schoolteacher and say they've stepped over a line and used public funds to do it." 

In recent history, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with that assessment --at least when it comes to abstinence-only sex education. 

"The Supreme Court has been tolerant of the overlaps between the religious message and the secular message condemning sex outside of marriage," said Catherine Weiss, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. "They view chastity as a secular value." 

Weiss, who has been closely involved in cases on the issue, said she finds the authors' argument "compelling" but predicts it would be difficult to prove in court. The Supreme Court, she says, usually only finds a law to be in violation of the establishment clause if its dominant purpose is to support religion. 

"That is a pretty tough test," Weiss said. 

Simson argues that the establishment clause does forbid government laws that have the effect of supporting religion -- not just those whose primary purpose is to promote a religious agenda. And he thinks the Supreme Court could justify outlawing abstinence-only lessons on those grounds. 

"We make an argument that, even if the court finds that (religion) is not the only purpose, that adopting a program of this sort has the effect of communicating government support of religion," he said. 

He and others favor the comprehensive sex education curricula -- which present abstinence as one option but also teach teens about birth control and other sexuality issues should they decide to have sex before marriage. 

"The biggest danger is that it doesn't speak to students who don't end up practicing abstinence," Simson said. "It's a bankrupt approach. These are public schools; it's the government endorsing religion. And their endorsement of religion here is very damaging to teenagers." 

But Giles and those supporting the abstinence-only message in schools say the curriculum is part of teaching kids values like good character and morality. He says the primary goal is not promoting religion but reducing teen pregnancy. 

"Where do you draw the line on teaching positive attributes?" he said. "Kids are going to be exposed to the world of sex on every front. What we need to be in the business of is teaching standards." 

Oops, I've lost my head!  How foolish can I be?  We can't count on the church "leaders" in most of the mainline denominations; not only are they NOT fighting the evil forces, in many cases, they are even joining them!

Here's just one little example of how those people, who we expect to stand up and defend the faith and promote Biblical morality, have acquiesced to the liberals' denigration of society:

DUKE TO PERMIT SAME-SEX UNIONS IN DUKE CHAPEL
Duke News Service
December 5, 2000

DURHAM, N.C. -- Concurring with the recommendation of a committee of faculty, staff, students and trustees, Duke University President Nannerl O. Keohane and Dean William H. Willimon have decided to permit the celebration of same-sex unions in Duke Chapel for members of the university community. 

"Our major rationale for this change is our conviction, in agreement with your committee, that Duke has a wonderful tradition of rich religious diversity," Keohane and Willimon said Tuesday in a letter thanking the committee for its deliberations on the issue. 

Such unions between members of the same gender heretofore have been prohibited in the chapel, primarily because the United Methodist Church, with which Duke is affiliated, does not permit such unions. But Keohane and Willimon noted that the chapel is not tied to a particular denomination, and is a university facility. In addition, they said the religious life staff represents 20 different faith groups, some of which - including Unitarians, the United Church of Christ and some Baptists - have been developing liturgies for such unions and wish to celebrate them in the chapel. 

"It is not, in our opinion, a matter of the chapel approving or disapproving of this liturgical innovation, but rather a question of how much religious diversity we should accommodate," Keohane and Willimon said. "We now feel, as a result of the discussion on campus during the past three months, and the work of your committee, that we ought to allow these unions to be celebrated by those clergy who are allowed, by their religious communities, to officiate at such ceremonies." 

The committee said gay and lesbian faculty, staff, students and alumni "have always been and remain important participants in the life of the chapel and its many affiliated religious life organizations." The committee report said "this same spirit of hospitality should be extended to any eligible same-sex couple wishing to deliberate with God's blessing a covenantal relationship of holy union." 

Click here to read a second viewpoint on this same event (and to see a beautiful view of the Duke University Chapel).

Also, along these lines, I recommend that you read an article just posted on the UCMPage that discusses the relativism and postmodern philosophy which so permeates our society today.

One thing is for certain, these liberals have a much larger agenda in mind than the simplistic attempt to separate religion from public schools, so don't get lost in the superficial aspects of this latest salvo against right living.  Allow me to repeat myself from an earlier column:

OK, so we see that there are a plethora of organizations that want to sexualize children.  A logical question is, What have they to gain by sexualizing children?  These organizations certainly appear to be altruistic and well-meaning in their motivations, so why do they want children to have sex before marriage, and at such young ages (puberty appears to be the target age).

I certainly don't have an absolute answer, but I could make a guess.  Let's look at the logic that would lead a person to want children to have sex:

1.  I have discarded the Judeo-Christian basis of morals, thus, it's not wrong to have sex outside of marriage (marriage is defined as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman in the presence of God).

2.  Sex is a natural urge that is difficult or impossible to control.

3.  The principle of freedom and personal autonomy demands that everyone has the right to have sex with anyone, at any time, at any age.

4.  I had/have sex outside of marriage, and I know I'm OK, so it must be OK, good, etc.

You might guess that I put the most significant reason last.  The first three reasons evolve out of a set of beliefs for standards, whereas the last one is a personal reason--a reason that a person will own for themselves.  We can easily refute the first reason as being inconsistent with our religion.  We can refute the second one by clearly distinguishing the difference between animals and humans, in that humans can control natural urges, otherwise there could never be any hope of a civil society.  We can refute the third one by the simple statement that even in a free society, there must be rules for living, and especially rules to protect the innocent children.

However, the fourth reason above as to why so many people want sex to be more free, and at any age, is quite different than the first three.  This fourth reason has an emotional basis, not a rational basis.  This fourth reason is a natural reaction to a feeling of guilt and shame.

When Christians can help a person understand that God forgives, and that Christ died for the sins of every one of us, and when the person confesses the sinful past, and repents, then this feeling of guilt and shame can be set aside, and no longer does the person have to justify past behavior and attempt to feel better by forcing that sinful behavior onto others.

With a faith in Jesus Christ, all of the reasons above for sexualizing children can be set aside.