Since many of our readers are against mandating that school children be exposed to things contrary to the values of their family in the case of intelligent design, I suppose the same people would take a similar stance on sex surveys for 6-year-olds.
A group of parents from the Palmdale school district in California sued the district over a portion of the survey that was given to their children without consent of the parents.
A consent form had to be signed, but the portion dealing with sex was purposely left off the form. So when parents found out that their first, third and fifth graders were asked wholly inappropriate questions about their sexual activity.
Not surprisingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the school district. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt said “no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation’s history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty” that gives the parent any control of this.
One can only assume that Judge Reinhart is ignorant of the entire history of the United States up until the 1900’s, since from the founding of the nation parents have been the ones charged with the education of their children. Only recently has the government coopted that authority. And only more recently have the government schools taught principles contrary to the accepted beliefs of the vast majority of families.
After this post, Sam, one of the biggest critics of the ID theory, said, “I don’t want my daughter being taught Christianity. I don’t want her being taught to hate gays – if you want to teach your children that, do so at home. But I’d prefer that she learn the prevailing scientific thought of the day, not the version that you’d prefer.”
I can only assume that Sam and others against the teaching of Intelligent design would be appalled at the ignoring of parental rights displayed by the Ninth Circuit in this case and in compulsory sex education classes.
If a theory of science that differs from the “prevailing scientific thought” cannot be discussed, in part, because of the rights of parents (and children) to not be forced to listen to views that are contradictory to their own; one would think that it would also be wrong to force parents to surrender their rights to instill moral values concerning sex to a school system that seeks to teach things contrary to the parents.
Intelligent design is merely a way of bringing up questions that evolutionary science has, to date, be unable to answer and then supposing that the reason behind that is irreducible complexity brought about by an intelligent being outside the evolutionary picture. That has little chance of inspiring a child to rebel against their parents’ beliefs, especially when it is taught along side evolution. Most children, I would think, would wish to ignore both theories as they provide little excitement.
Sex, on the otherhand, is an intrinsically exciting subject, one where many children disobey and rebel against their parents. Forcing sexual thoughts about “touching yourself” and “touching others” on to a first grader, seems to be a little more serious than giving a contrary view of the development of life on earth.
Can we wage some type of common ground and alliance? I will no longer argue for the teaching of intelligent design, if we can also remove sex-saturated education from the public schools. Seems reasonable to me.
Very nice analogy, and shows that what secularists want is a stranglehold on the ecuational system – they want *their* values taught, rather than leaving it up to the local parents. There has to be a balance here, though. I don't want shariah law taught to my kids just because the local school board is muslim. Nor do I want the permissive sexual mores of the liberals taught in the school. And *they* don't want ID. (In fact, even IDers don't want ID taught exclusively – all they want is the opportunity to give intellectually honest voice to the problems with evolution. Their motives? Partly religious, partly scientific and intellectual integrity, partly, to teach or children HOW to think, not just WHAT to think.)
So what principles do we use to determine what is beneficial, proper, ethical, and moral in the public curriculums?
I think this problem may have a resolution, but because the primary authority and responsibility for educating children should be on parents and NOT civil government, until we get parents to take their duty more seriously, we will continue to have this problem. Public schooling is problematic because it usurps the parents' responsibitlities, as you said. But we have to provide a model that we think works.
Aaron,
Two things-
1. Parents should know, and if they don't want THEIR children taking the survey, they should allow their children to opt out. (I do not believe that this extends as far as actual classes. In other words, Christian kids don't get to opt out of Biology because they're believers in Intelligent Design.) Hiding something from parents seems unseemly.
2. This isn't something that we as adults often discuss, but no child is having ideas put into his or her head by this survey, even children that young. Children are curious by nature. They want to know what's going on – which is why children will often be found playing "doctor," not because they're interested sexually, because they want to know what that girl has that he doesn't. Or whatever. Children explore not only themselves, but others when the opportunity presents itself. This isn't because they're perverts, but because they're interested. This interest needs explanation.
Still, sneaking something into a survey against the wishes of parents offends me as much as it does you.
3. Finally, Intelligent Design is not what you're saying it is. The pushers of Intelligent Design want evolution out of the classrooms and Intelligent Design in. They aren't interested in the needs of nonChristian parents. As Seeker long ago proved, there are Christian activists who CLEARLY believe that nonChristian parents aren't good ones, or at least as good as Christian ones.
4. No, I won't agree to a trade off. What I will agree to is this: no more snuck in sexual questions for children, and no more Intelligent Design. Children, especially teenagers HAVE to know about birth control and the effective ways to use it. This is the most surefire way to prevent abortion, which you'd think would interest you greatly. (No, abstinence education isn't, because AE appeals only to children who weren't going to have sex in the first place. It's the kids who ARE going to have sex that need our education.)
Seeker,
I hadn't had the misfortune of reading your post when I was posting mine. You suggest that I want my values taught – as if my values involve SNEAKING surveys past parents. You're being, as usual, a jerk.
As for my other values, I do want them taught, because mine are right. Yours aren't. You believe only in Christian values, to the exclusion of everybody else. I believe that everybody should be able to live their lives, and should do so possessing the most amount of information possible. You believe in raising children ignorant of sex and hateful toward gays. I'm sorry, but those aren't values worth teaching.
Since most ID proponents are only suggesting reading a one sentence disclaimer, parents who don't want their kids to hear that one sentence can opt out of that one day, not the whole biology class. But OMG, what fanatics would actually do that?
no child is having ideas put into his or her head by this survey
Sam, that is a rediculous statement. Everything a child sees or hears puts ideas into their heads. These surveys are way too explicit for young children, except for those being abused or exposed to porno (which is also abuse, I think).
You may want social researchers using your kid as a guinea pig, but I don't want them introducing my kid to sex before they need to be. Most of the kids that I knew that were interested or pre-occupied with sex at that age were sexually active way too early, and often ended up getting pregnant in grade school, or making someone pregnant.
The pushers of Intelligent Design want evolution out of the classrooms and Intelligent Design in.
Again, you conflate ID and Creationists. Your mistake, and this type of anti-intellectual fear-based approach will be the undoing of evolutionary teaching in the schools.
are Christian activists who CLEARLY believe that nonChristian parents aren't good ones
Sam, quit being a jerk. I said that xian values for parenting are superior. There are plenty of christians who don't do a good job raising their kids, and plenty of secularists who do a good enough job. My point was and is that the truth's of xianity are objectively true, and that xian parenting, when done correctly, is better than other types becuase it is based on both practical AND spiritual truth.
What I will agree to is this: no more snuck in sexual questions for children, and no more Intelligent Design
NO deal. How about we teach a balanced, intellectually honest, and morally circumspect curriculum to our kids. Sure evolution is the prevailing theory, so we can teach it. But let's teach the intellectual and scientific weaknesses and objections to this theory. Unless you just want to teach kids WHAT to think, rather than HOW. And let's teach them abstinence as the primary method of sexual activity before marriage, and also teach birth control as a fall-back method.
That's the compromise I want to see.
I said nothing about sneaking – only about values. And where did I mention your name? You are way too sensitive.
I believe that everybody should be able to live their lives, and should do so possessing the most amount of information possible.
Except when it comes to your religion, evolution.
-I haven't read the survey's specific questions – and perhaps specific acts ARE being suggested by the survey itself – but if you think children don't have intellectual curiosity at a young age, you're wrong.
-ID is creationism, because the "intelligence" is the Christian formulation of God. You know that.
-See, there you go again. "Good enough." Nonsense. My parenting is excellent, and would only be harmed by teaching my child the allegedly Christian "value" of gay hate. How you can believe that you're a better parent than nonChristians because you're going to teach your child to hate gays is absolutely beyond me.
-Did you just agree to teaching birth control in the classroom? Because I have no problem with abstinence being pushed as long as birth control is also being pushed. Of course, abstinence only education doesn't teach anything resembling birth control. I can't believe I actually won one of these!
-Aaron, why didn't we talk about college basketball when you posted about it? I was certainly willing to. You've let me down.
– Sam, I think you would agree the survey is way too suggestive. It is insane to ask a first grader not just about touching themselves, but about wanting to touch other people, how often they think about having sex, etc. Those do put thoughts in children's minds that they are not even possibly thinking about (At least I wasn't, I was more worried about watching GI Joe and He-man than thinking about seeing the little girl besides me naked!)
– Personally, I don't think kids should be able to opt out of science because of evolution. I want my sons to know about evolution..so they can refute it! ;) It would be nice if they voiced some of the concerns and questions left unanswered by evolution. I don't care if they say ID says this. I would just like for them to take one day out of the school year and say, some people disagree with evolution and these are some of their questions. Is that really too much to ask?
I am concerned however about sex education. I will teach my sons what they need to know, when they need to know it. That may sound harsh, but either I set that standard or the school does. I think I know my sons better than they do.
– I think you'd also be surprised at how many Jews, Muslims and agnostics support ID and are involved in the scientific work. I guess they would be surprised to know they are pushing the Christian God.
– I will post on college basketball again. That is one of my biggest hobbies and I will gladly discuss it with you. Duke survived a semi-scare in their first game against Boston Univ., not looking at all like the #1 team. They should get it together though (at least I hope!)
Did you just agree to teaching birth control in the classroom?
I have repeatedly said that I prefer the ABC method – teach Abstinence until marriage as the first and best approach to sexual activity, esp. intercourse. And teach it in a way that encourages people to make the effort, not with a wink and a smile, saying "but we know no one can really do that." The B is Be Faithful in marriage, and the C is, if you are going to have any other kind of sex, a.k.a. unsafe sex, use contraception.
My parenting is excellent, and would only be harmed by teaching my child the allegedly Christian "value" of gay hate.
Your parenting might be good, but in the places where it is explicity unchristian, it is probably not good. And it could be better. And what you call "hate" others call morality – I am not teaching violence or hatred against gays, any more than I am teaching violence or hatred against the promiscuous or adulterers when I teach my children those values. Most gays I know are very nice people, their morality aside.
If you are teaching your child that sexual sin is ok, I'd say your parenting is indeed inferior to the Christian who teaches a respectful approach to people, but a dislike for sin and its negative affects on people and society. And as one author says, nice is the enemy of good. Tolerance of evil in one'e own life or society is not a virtue, but cowardice. I'm sure you will teach your kids that anyone who thinks hx is a sin is evil, and you will teach them to fight for that virtue, and not be afraid of the fundies.
Me, I will teach my kid to avoid sexual sin at all costs, and to pursue God's plan for their lives, as revealed in their personality and in the scriptures.
Having been raised in a secular scientific family (my parents were both medical, my grandfather a science teacher and pharmacist), I know that a family that teaches disdain for faith is selling their kids short. One day, your child, like me, may very well need faith, and you will have not provided an answer. Will you?
Seeker – see, when it gets personal like this, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say. So I'll rely on the old standby: fuck you. Don't tell me how to raise my kid, and don't tell me I'm a bad parent. I might not like the fact that you're teaching your kids to hate gays, but I'd never suggest that you aren't loving and doing the best that you can for your kids.
While I'm at it read: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_11_13-200…
It's a defense of the decision. And unless you want an activist decision from the courts, then you'll obviously change your mind and support the decision.
Sam, I understand you are upset, but please refrain from "the old standby" here.
As to your link to Volokh defense of the ruling. I found it interesting read. I disagree with him for several reasons. One being that I think the Supreme Court has found for parent's rights and I believe as the writer at Confirm Them said, the right of a parent in this case are "natural-law right that was codified into the positive law by the Constitution vis-a-vis the Ninth Amendment."
Regardless of the court decision, the school district should have never given the survey to start with. It seems clear by their omitting the sexual questiosn from the portion parent's received that they were trying to slip this past parents because they knew many would reject it. That is decitful at best and I would loathe my school district if they did that to my child.
Aaron,
I'll apologize to you for writing what I did. I was obviously infuriated. (Seeker's getting nothing from me, unless he'd like to apologize for suggesting that I'm not a good parent.)
Also, I agree that they shouldn't have snuck the survey past the parents. That seems absurd. (Finally, Duke romped last night. Which I hate, but congratz to you.)
I am suggesting that Christian parenting is superior. Obviously, you feel it is inferior, and so you call me a bad parent for teaching "intolerance" and "hate" – you see, you act and think exactly the same way as I do – the only difference is, you are offended when I overtly say what we both act and think.
I didn't say you were bad – I said *if* you used a lesser value system, you were not as good. Can you not tell the difference? That is a fair statement to make, and you intimated as much, or more, by insulting me with your accusations of hate – I did not even make such an instulting remark.
I agree that they shouldn't have snuck the survey past the parents.
It might have "snuck by" the incredibly dim-witted parents that didn't realize that a questionairre about childhood trauma might entail child molestation.
I humbly submit that the lawsuit constitutes per se evidence that they're unfit parents, on the grounds of extreme stupidity.
lol jpe