I believe that Winston Churchill played the greatest role in
the 20th century. Almost single-handedly, he opposed Hitler. Chills
still go up and down my spine when I see movies about how he and the nation he
was leading bravely resisted the National Socialist onslaught. I am still
profoundly moved as I watch documentaries of how common British boats-men raced
to Dunkirk to
save their stranded British army from certain destruction, allowing them to
fight another day.
I am equally moved when I read about the 30 year quest of
William Wilberforce to lead his nation in abolishing the slave trade and how he
won the right for missionaries to be sent into the British colonies to
counteract the effect of the exploitation of the traders.
However, I am a recovering Anglophile. Two articles in the
latest Salvo Magazine will help to explain
my evolution:
- Some elementary schools in Britain have taken sex ed to a new level by showing students as young as eight a DVD called Living and Growing. Computer-generated images show a man and woman having sex in a variety of positions, while the narrator describes explicitly what’s happening. The DVD also give information about masturbation and orgasms (with an animated sequence depicting ejaculation). (Salvo, Summer 2012, 33)
I don’t wish to pick on the UK. The entire secular West is
doing-it! However, Britain
is playing the role of our Big Brother – our role model – leading the way. It
reminds me of a movie in which sweaty youth jumped out of their clothing ASAP
to jump into the ocean. However, in this case, the West is shedding its
spiritual clothing – Christianity – to jump into the sexualized unknown. But in
the case of the youth, they subsequently and happily retrieved their clothing
after their swim. However, in the case of the West, Britain is rejecting its spiritual
clothing entirely and is now parading naked.
The next article also demonstrates how secularism has
usurped the role of “parent” and “spiritual guide”:
- In Britain, news broke that girls as young as 13 were given contraceptive implants or injections at their schools as part of a government effort to decrease teenage pregnancy rates. Parental consent was apparently not required, and many parents were upset. One columnist summed it up like this: “School nurses aren’t allowed to apply even a sticking plaster (band-aid) to children in case they have a dangerous allergic reaction, but pumping school-girls full of hormones so they can get at it like brood mares is just dandy” (33)
Why the hypocrisy? Secularism not only wants to bypass
parents, it also wants to bypass its Christian roots. Even more, it has buried
its clothing as it rushes headlong into the ocean.
I may remain an Anglophile, but my love will not be for what
Britain
has become, but for what it had been.
Oh, and the contraceptives program only seems to apply to a small region - a test case, if you will.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that it required the consent of the girl (who may or may not have been able to give informed consent), that it is working (pregnancies are down), and that the parents were informed of the program.
We could discuss whether it is going too far for government to allow teenagers to access birth control without parental consent in this fashion. We could also discuss whether parents have the right to keep their children in ignorance, or to deny their children birth control (and at what age this applies, case by case, etc).
What we both can acknowledge, however, is that the program is working, something that abstinence only programs are unable to boast.
You seem to believe that the Secular State is the bulwark against ignorance. However, the various social ills, including out-of-wedlock birth escalated at the advent of your militant secularism and the marginalization of God in the early sixties.
DeleteRegarding the showing of explicit sex education material, the UK is apparently introducing a ratings system.
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting though, is the different approaches to sex ed. You seem to favour keeping children ignorant, and relying upon parents (who are often ignorant themselves) to inform the children. But the children have the right to knowledge of their own bodies, and so a line needs to be drawn someplace, and comprehensive sex education should take place at some time. The question is really when - "Never" is doing a disservice to the young.
Oh, I guess that the Secular State knows best.
DeleteI am posting a study on abstinence ed:
Deletehttp://mannsword.blogspot.com/2012/06/abstinence-ed-vs-sexual-expression-ed.html
There's one sure way to wreck kids...and that's to leave them in the hands of secular government.
ReplyDeleteThey spend enormous amounts of time and money trying to keep them away from cigarettes and french fries...but teach them all the latest sex positions and condom styles. As if their psyche and spiritual life did not exist.
Amazing, isn't it! And yet, we are characterized as those inquisitional powers that are depriving them of their rights.
DeleteSteve: There's one sure way to wreck kids...and that's to leave them in the hands of secular government.
DeleteI guess we should leave them with their abusive parents, am I right?
Black and white thinking such as this doesn't help anyone.
Steve: ...but teach them all the latest sex positions and condom styles.
Of course you have evidence to support this accusation, right?
And you have evidence to suggest that this is a bad thing, right?
Steve: As if their psyche and spiritual life did not exist.
Well, since claims of a "spiritual life" are conditioned on ones religious beliefs, and the state is constitutionally obligated to avoid endorsing any one religion (or even group of religions), this is a good thing.
Or should children be taught that if they have sex too early they'll be reincarnated further down the spiritual ladder, ala Hinduism?
Or are you now asking for special treatment for your religion?
Mann: Amazing, isn't it! And yet, we are characterized as those inquisitional powers that are depriving them of their rights.
DeleteAnd yet no one is preventing you from talking about a "spiritual life" with your children, and educating them on what that means for a Christian like yourself.
The problem comes when, as Steve seems to be implicitely advocating, you use the apparatus of the (secular) state for teaching children about your sectarian beliefs.
I'll ask you the same (or similar) question I asked Steve - would you like the state to teach children that sex outside the strictures outlined as acceptable in Hinduism, they're likely to be reincarnated further down the spiritual ladder?
I certainly would not, and I doubt you would either.
Admittedly, there is a fierce battle over the minds and hearts of children in terms of public school education.
DeleteAdmittedly, I do not want to see children taught to explore their sexuality - explicitly or implicitly.
However, the methods that secularism uses are highly monopolistic and disingenuous:
1. The media and the universities present only one side - theirs.
2. They routinely denigrate the Christian faith.
3. They pose as "neutral," above the other narrow and competing factions. They are just as much religious as anyone else.