Robbing children of their innocence

A documentary outlines the development of a disturbing program for sex education

Michael Cook | May 4 2016 | comment

The War on Children: The Comprehensive Sexuality Education Agenda from Documentary_ on Vimeo.

When it comes time to talk about the birds and bees to their kids, many parents go AWOL, leaving their sprogs to learn about the facts of life from TV, their friends and the internet. No one thinks that this is an ideal situation, so schools step in with sex ed programs.

These have always been controversial, but the latest development ought to outrage parents. It is the global spread of “comprehensive sex education” (CSE).

The package comes with various labels and contents. But the common denominator is the notion that sex is about pleasure and pushing the boundaries, not about babies and responsibility. It assumes that children of all ages are naturally sexual and need to be taught how to engage in sexual activity even as toddlers.

Amongst the well-funded international organisations which are pushing CSE curricula for schools are various institutions under the umbrella of the United Nations like the United Nations Population Fund, UNESCO, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), the Population Council, and International Planned Parenthood.

However, the principles of CSE have been incorporated into curricula by national organisations. The controversy in Australia over teaching materials provided by the Safe Schools Coalition simply reflects trends in other countries.

It’s hard to resist the allure of conspiracy theories when examining how CSE has been adopted by many schools all over the world. Is someone coordinating this assault on children’s innocence?

Deceit seems to be baked into these programs. As an example of the Orwellian doublespeak that CSE uses, take the term “abstinence”. Whether they agree with it or not, parents are entitled to think that a sex ed curriculum which promotes abstinences teaches children to abstain from sex before marriage. Not so. Abstinence in CSE means refraining only from sexual activity which leads to pregnancy. Many books used in CSE programs give explicit instructions about how to engage in other "fun" activities.

The film above about comprehensive sex education is a joint project of Family Watch International, the UN Family Rights Caucus, the Stop the Kinsey Institute coalition and concerned parents. A website gives more background. Some sections are very confronting, but parents need to see what CSE brings to the classroom or they would never believe it. It is not for children.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/robbing-children-of-their-innocence/18012#sthash.hfvpG42p.dpuf

Well, the people of Indiana have spoken. Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for the Presidency and will face the (nearly) presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton in November's election. After months of campaigning the greatest horse race in the world is entering the final straight. The pundits are placing their bets; the crowd is roaring; the jockeys are thrashing their mounts. It will be the most interesting election in decades.

Except that an election is not a horse race. It's a deeply ethical decision for each and every one of the voters. And they have been presented with a cruel choice this year. On the one hand they have Clinton, a millionaire from the big end of town pretending to be a champion of the disadvantaged, under a cloud for dishonesty, a polished politician who has built her career on supporting abortion and gay rights. On the other hand, they have Trump, a billionaire who has never been elected to anything, a man full of vulgar narcissistic bombast, a man who supports torture, who wants to treat migrants like felons, who admires the toughness of gangsters like Vladimir Putin. He says that he is pro-life, but can he be believed?

Is it possible for an American voter who believes in human dignity to support either of them? Or is it better to vote for an obscure third-party candidate? Or to boycott the election altogether? Whatever the answer is, voters have to examine the issues and the candidates deeply.