From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sex Education in Public Schools
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:04:28 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C0p9Iy.Avr@vcd.hp.com> thatcher@vcd.hp.com (Garen Thatcher) writes:
>The passages that were posted were very troubling. I have 2 kids that have
>not yet begun school. If I were to hear that the local schools were using
>any of the above books, I would opt for a private school, home schooling,
>or a church education of my choice. I do think that there are some things
>that I as a parent should teach/expose my kids to. It is not up to the
>educators to decide what is best for my kids. That is the parents resp. and
>is why systems like the school board and the PTA were started. 
>
>What also burns me up is the fact that those people who advocate that the
>above referenced books become part of the education are those who are 
>trying hard to remove ALL religious aspects from the education system.
>This country was founded on religious principles, many people came to the
>US seeking religious freedom, and MANY MANY people today believe in a God,
>so why are we removing all aspects from the history of our country while
>tring to replace it with this garbage mentioned above. 

1) The Puritans were not seeking religious freedom for anyone but themselves.

2) If MANY MANY people believe in a God, then why can't they inculcate
religious values at home, where they can be most successfully transmitted?
Ah, you will object, the schools conspire against us by telling our kids
our religious values are wrong.  *BUT THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT*.  Religion
menas nothing if it is not constantly questioned and challenged.  Without
being challenged, religion is nothing more than a "dead dogma," to quote
John Stuart Mill, and not a living, breathing, meaningful truth.  The role
of the family and household is to rebut, and most emphatically not *hide*,
these challenges to religion.

3) IMHO you are confusing the free exercise of religion with the compulsory
exercise of religoin.  IMHO, people should be able to *voluntarily* pray in
school.  But voluntary means just that: voluntary, and not an officially
sanctioned event with time set aside specifically for the purpose of 
praying.  I do believe that the 1st amendment allows, and indeed even would
endorse, things such as before-school prayer groups as they are voluntary
and not coercive.  But time set aside during the day for organized prayer
is coercive because it sends students the message that *one specific creed*
is officially sanctioned.  People who are against condom distribution claim
(perhaps correctly, perhaps not -- I haven't decided) that such
distribution gives official sanction to sex.  Please apply the same reasoning
to school prayer.  Organized prayer gives official sanction to a particular
creed, in violation of the no-establishment clause of the 1st amendment
which the Founding Fathers themselves wrote.

Please note that I am not denigrating private schools, which may be
educationally superior in other ways.

Chris
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12186 alt.rush-limbaugh:13557