Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

Shhh--Don't Tell Anyone, But Someone's Being Reasonable in the MoCo Sex Ed Debate

Montgomery County's battle over sex education--remember last year's debate over the cucumber videotape showing how to put on a condom?--is hardly over. The county is trying to revise the curriculum that a federal judge threw out, and the arguments continue to fly between parent groups supporting the county's efforts to give young children instruction on family matters and those who believe that the government should stay out of such areas.
Here's a good point from one of the most vociferous advocates of the county's drive to instill more sex ed into the schools: There really are three sides or at least three factions in this debate--the pro group, which I find just about as doctrinaire and intolerant as the anti group, and a middle group, to which I subscribe. The blogger Jim K does a nice job of identifying that middle group, which in the following post he calls the first group:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/vigilance.html

The Third Group I have said before that there are three kinds of parties in the controversy over sex education in Montgomery County. First, there are those people who are concerned about the innocence of children, who believe in a certain sense of modesty, feel that the modern world has become too sexualized, and do not believe the public schools should contribute to the tawdriness. Second, there are those who believe that the public schools should educate young people about the objective facts of sexuality in order to lead them to make better decisions in their own lives, and to have knowledge of their own feelings and the feelings of those around them, with the result that they will be better citizens. Those two groups can hold a debate and come to a conclusion. They are not actually opposed to one another, in fact a member of one group should have no difficulty seeing the point of view of the other. It is really just a matter of emphasis, is it more important to protect their innocence even though they may find themselves in situations that they don't know how to deal with, or is it better to give them knowledge that they may not be ready for? But there is a third group. This group wants to disrupt. Unfortunately, this group tends to use the language of religion to insist that their views are not only superior but infallible, because they emanate directly from God. This group demonizes people who are different from them, seeing only evil and immorality where a person stands. The third group believes a conspiracy exists, where some people want to be treated with respect. This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out.... continued at above site.

By Marc Fisher |  January 4, 2006; 7:25 AM ET
Previous: Fisher Food Finds | Next: Richie Rich Edges Lex Luthor!

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



So really the blogger Jim K is just anti-organized religion.

Yes there is intolerance in the camp of the religious right-however they are not the religious correct! God is love and tolerance and I suspect intolerant positions can be found in the 1st two groups as well.

A handful of loudmouths are unfortunately just that "loudmouths and only a handful".
Let those that have not painted with a broad brush comment!

Posted by: D~ | January 4, 2006 3:54 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company