American Thinker | Janice Shaw Crouse | Aug. 30, 2009
During the summer slump, two United Nations agencies — United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) — issued highly controversial new guidelines for sexuality education of children around the world. These groups have a long history of pushing “reproductive health care,” and the new report, International Guidelines on Sexuality Education, builds on an earlier report released by the International Planned Parenthood Federation to promote the “need and entitlement” for sexuality education for children beginning at age five.
Not surprisingly, both documents argue for “guaranteeing” the sexual rights of children and for integrating sexuality education as an essential aspect of human rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights is cited as the source for the assertion of the absolute human “right” of young people to have sexuality education, access to condoms, and abortion-on-demand.
Additionally, in the view of the United Nations, sexuality education is the responsibility of “education and health authorities” not parents. Teachers and doctors, so the liberal line goes, understand the big picture and have the conceptual understanding necessary — the “rights based approach” that excludes parents and incorporates appropriate “practitioner experience and expert opinion.” Excluding parents from the process keeps them from being aware of how frequently “sexuality education” indoctrinates against traditional values, especially “discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
At the outset, the report makes it clear that “good” sexuality education should “take priority over personal opinion” — which, being translated, means trample all over traditional morality. One whole section of the report counters the “common concerns” of those who “resist” sexuality education. The implication is that the report’s “evidence-based” approach is “non-judgmental” and should prevail over those “custodians of culture” who dare to put values ahead of the “needs of young people.” The report states as fact that “teachers remain the best qualified and most trusted providers of information and support for most children and young people.” Yet, parents remain their children’s most trusted advisors.
The report paints a very dire picture of young people’s supposed “inadequate preparation for their sexual lives” — especially the “conflicting and confusing messages about sexuality and gender.” Naturally, the report identifies both “gender” and “diversity” as “fundamental characteristics of sexuality.” The term “gender” is used nearly 200 times in the 54-page report. The “inadequacy” of current sexuality education, the report contends, leaves young people “vulnerable to coercion, abuse and exploitation, unintended pregnancy, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV.”
In other words, we learn later on in the report, if kids would just learn how to masturbate at around five years of age they could avoid abuse and exploitation and the other problems mentioned above. “Masturbation” the report emphasizes, “is a safe and valid expression of sexuality.” All this information must be conveyed, of course, in the “school setting” as part of a “formal curriculum” for maximum impact and effectiveness. After all (get ready for high-powered scare tactics!) ignorance and misinformation can be life threatening.
The report recommends “age-specific standard learning objectives for sexuality education.” The authors stress the importance of addressing “beliefs, values and skills that are amendable to change.” Thus, they let us know at the outset that authoritative — timeless — beliefs and values are unacceptable.
The authors stress that their report is not a curriculum. Instead, it is a strategic plan — “a global template,” if you will — “to introduce and strengthen sexuality education.” Ah! The purpose is clear: this is a “how to” manual for getting around those pesky parents and their “misplaced” concerns. It is, after all, (as is mentioned repeatedly) “rights based” and “respectful of sexual and gender diversity.” There are sections that tell readers how to develop a case for sexuality education in the face of opposition. Another section describes how to plan for implementation. So, let’s get this right: schools now must teach reading, writing, math and sexuality.
. . . more
We can’t blame the meat for going bad if we don’t apply salt. We are the salt of the earth. We need to do more than bemoan the state of affairs and take an active role in protecting our children and grandchildren through prayer, intelligent public dialog and refusing to yield our rights as parents. We need to be active in teaching our children and grandchildren in our own homes and honestly addressing what they are likely to hear from “other authorities” so they understand a Biblical worldview and can identify that which is enemy to it.