I think we're about 40 years too late.

If you don't have a strong relationship with your kids, they are getting their "education" from films, friends or personal experience. Talk with your children about important parts of life like this or they will be getting their morals and principle from someone else.

It is never to late to teach our young children the facts of life. I agree with Becky. I don't understand why some parents think if they don't talk about it, the children won't do it. The head in the sand theory does not work. They are NOT abstaining. So educate.

Cniht - You are probably an example of why the community feels the need to provide sex-ed in school.

Sex Ed is only a back-up plan. Th real education should be in the home. It's obvious though that this isn'y getting done.

Hope it turns out better than the sex ed class I had in school. Hour long discussion on reasons why you shouldn't have sex and what can result from it isn't enough. You need to show these kids pictures of what STD's will make your body parts look like and have them carry those dolls that cry and need feeding.

Cniht- if NYC is a "rat hole", where do you live? In a palace?

Get off your high horse and get real.

You guys think an 11 year old needs to discuss safe sex. That is age appropriate. How about this, parents start being parents and deal with these issues. So if any of you are parents start doing your job and take a little responsibility in raising you kids.

You all wonder why our kids are getting dumber. Do you think Japan has these classes. No they are studying real subjects.

Chuck,

If you feel that way then you handle that in your own town, city, and or state. I'm more then accomidating in that regard. I won't even stoop to a personal insult as you do it, unlike yourself.

However, the blunt and brutal point I'm actually making is your own. Parents especially need to do their own 'raising' of their children instead of farming it out to schools. Especially a school system that literally just made the news for a 22 year old teacher having sex with a student. This is a waste of resources because while some of these kids may practice perfect safe sex, almost 50% of them drop out of high school. Even of the ones that do graduate most cannot adequately read, write, or do basic math. Maybe the schools should focus their limited funds, of which are only going to be getting smaller year after year in this economy, toward core functions.

I think if you raised the general intelligence level by educating children in the basics they can pick up a lot of secondaries on their own, despite potential bad parenting. I give these kids more credit then many people, but that's me.

Chuck in Olathe - Kids get most of their information now from other kids, and it has been that way for a very long time. Sex Education in schools is indeed vital, and frankly, parents should NOT be allowed to "opt out" on information about birth control. If the matter is an issue of personal, moral objection, then yes, the parents' duty is to pass that on. But the mere knowledge of it is still essential part of basic information.

They shouldn't spend too much time on it because it takes away from other subjects and the budgets are already spread thin. They still need to teach it though. an hour or two a week spent on this would be enough over the course of the school year.

Cniht- for you to say the whole New York rat hole bs you are obviously an ignorant person. Have you not noticed that stupid show on MTV idolizing Teen Moms. Guess where most of those girls are from the south west so before you start stereotyping areas check out what kids are watching and from where they are from. Kids need to learn about safe sex in school and from there parents. Sorry to all the conservatives but the majority of kids don't abstain or use protection as much as they should. Everyone would wish people would learn from others but they don't so the best way is to drill it into kids heads from school and home.

I think this is a good idea. The teachers could learn a lot from the students.

"I think this is a good idea. The teachers could learn a lot from the students."

How about the reverse for once? That is, students tying their cups or rods tight, and instead focus on their studies, which is what they are supposed to do, instead of chasing the skirts?

It's the job of the parents to talk to their kids about the do's and dont's of the sex. Not the freeking teachers. Teachers are meant to teach Language arts, Maths, Science, Social Studies, Physical Education, Music, etc. Not Darn SEX.

Cniht says .

I won't even stoop to a personal insult as you do it, unlike yourself

I said you're probably an example - and frankly, you are. It wasn't meant to insult, but if you take that that way then so be it. Your opening comment was an insult to all teachers.

@John A; I hope you read the part of my post that said Sex Ed is only a back-up plan.

@Assorted - Maybe the answer to your concern is another hour or two in school for our kids, similar to what they do in Japan and like Jeremy suggests..

In California, Brown signed into law pro-gay info for small children. MIddle or high school, fine, but for small children, it might be confusing. Sex is usually not on the radar at that age.

In California, Brown signed into law pro-gay info for small children.

Like telling them they should be gay? Wow - do you have a link you can share? Or was it just not anti-gay?

MIddle or high school, fine, but for small children, it might be confusing. Sex is usually not on the radar at that age.

Sex is on their radar, and it is confusing if it's not explained. Grade-school kids hear words like "gay," and they DO wonder. My kids are in grade school, and they did wonder about these things. And when I explained the basics of what sex is, and what "gay" means, they were very matter-of-fact about it. They're still grossed out by the idea of sex, as they should be at their age, but most importantly, they're not confused about it any more.

Information is power. Children should be empowered to understand their world.

@Jeremy -1479087:

Actually, sex education is taught in schools in much of the world, including most of Europe. Sex education in Europe is far more extensive than here and they have much lower rates of teenage pregnancy than we do. That's not a coincidence.

There is an OBVIOUS problem with relying on parents to teach about sex. Many parents don't know much about sex themselves. I will never forget reading about one set of parents that begged their doctor for help with infertility. They insisted that they should have a baby by now because they "have sex every month during her period". Then there are the many parents that just can't bring themselves to talk about it with their kids.

Relying on the ignorant and the prudish to teach kids about sex is not a good idea.

I've got news for all you traditionalists.

Like it or not, thanks to the internet and cell phones, kids are being exposed to things you and I wouldnt have even dreamed of 10, 15 years ago.

Gone are the days of sneaking into the woods to look at Dad's moldy old Playboy found in his workshop.

Here are the days of 8th graders sending someone a cell phone picture of their ta-tas, only to have it forwarded to the entire school by 4th period.

Sadly, in the world we live in today, I don't think 11 is too young to start this discussion. Kids need to at least understand the mechanics of pregnancy & STDs before they start having sex and since we know that they're staring to have sex earlier than ever, we probably need to start talking about it earlier. It would be nice if parents did their jobs so the school system didn't have to do their job but there comes a point where we can't ignore the obvious any longer.

D.Man; Bingo.

It's what I started with saying, although I didn't mention the internet. It's a new worl, we're 40 years behind and it's time for parents to step up and teach their kids morals. It would help give context with all the other stuff kids will be exposed to.

I wonder if this teaching invokes the act or temporarily rejects the thought of wanting to try such an act.

I'm sure teaching at this age level way help reduce pregnancy and disease, but there must be a percentage of children that are invoked by such an act and want to try. I wonder which percentage is higher.

If denial and abstinance-only teaching worked, I wouldn't exist. My mom never had any kind of sex ed in school, and her mother refused to answer any questions on the subject. So, based on what she learned from her friends, she believed you couldn't get pregnant the first time. Nine months later, there I was.

My sisters and I each got the basic biology 'how babies are made' talk at around 9-10, and were put on the pill as soon as we started dating (16 or so). We were encouraged to take our time, wait till it was right, but 'waiting till marriage' was not expected. All three of us married in our 20's and then had children when ready.

If you are going to speak about something YOU SHOULD know what you are talking about it doesn't say they will teach it to the young one just that it could be there is no age limit to the bill

@Jeremy,

It took me about 3 seconds of Googling to find out that you are incorrect.

Sex Ed in Japan begins at age 10/11. It's been part of the general curriculum since 1992.

I always find it funny that people just make up "facts" that fit their viewpoint, when in this day and age it is SO very easy to find out the real facts for yourself.



Junicon- I am glad you feel that I am to ignorant to teach my kids but the government is not. You may feel like you can't parent but I can. Maybe if parents were responsible we would not have these problems.

Matt- I stand corrected. Sorry I was not making up facts, go read my post. It was more of an assumption than anyting. Maybe you need to work on parenting if you have kids more than googling sex ed in Japan.

To all of the "traditionalists" out there, kids not knowing about sex is a new phenomenon. Back in the halcyon days you guy so love to look back upon, most children witnessed sex regularly. They grew up around and were responsible for the care of many types of animals.

They might have still had some misinformation, but they new what sex was.

Maybe you need to work on parenting if you have kids more than googling sex ed in Japan.

"Stop making me look so ill-informed! Parenting should take every second of your life; you shouldn't have 15 of them to spare to actually check my claims."

soylent- guess you are to stupid to read, congratulations. You also probably want the government to do your job too.

cniht-

Even of the ones that do graduate most cannot adequately read, write, or do basic math.

such as yourself? you might want to check the difference between then and than and the spelling of accomodate.

Jeremy - not trying to start a fight with you, but when someone calls you out because you made up a fact, calling them stupid doesn't help. Also you may need to go back to grade school and learn when to use "TOO" versus "TO"

@ Hatr

lol, i got a headache reading half the posts in this thread. The grammar is awful, and it's by most of the people who are taking the "damn the government!" approach.

don't read comment 4.2 by ok so i'm gay then, your head will explode.

So birth control methods will be taught as part of Sex Education in New York?

Does anyone besides me wonder why expert (and presumably objective) advice on abstinence is not included?

Seriously, that is the only 100% method for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy. And it sure is the only 100% protection against Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs).

Why is it omitted as a choice?

(The links to my sources could not be shown here.)

Methinks it's because abstinence-only education doesn't work...even for "devout" supporters like Bristol Palin

Good for NY.

Maybe they will teach the students that homosexual couples CAN NOT make babies since there is so much confusion out there.

It takes male sperm and a female egg in the right circumstance to make a baby in case you did not learn that in school either.

I'm a proponent of sex-ed, both biological and sociological. Here's a couple issues I have though.

I don't think any sex-ed class will be truly effective, unless we as a culture/society address some key issues which aren't normally part of a sex-ed curriculum. They are...

1. Gender roles and expectations. We need to have greater social equality between men and women when it comes to sex. The media-hyped, religious based, machismo driven categories (i.e. the virgin, the whore, the man-eater) that we place on the backs of our girls are unjust. As are the body issues and self esteem issues that face young women. How can you expect any, but the most well adjusted young women, to be able to handle the responisbilities of being sexually active when we simulatneously are telling them they're only good for their bodies, but if they use them they're sluts? While we also ignore, or accuse them of lying, if they report a sex crime that was comitted against them, we glorify sexual degradation and humiliation in pornography and the media. No wonder they're screwy about this stuff.

2. The taboo nature of sex in this country is RIDICULOUS! We can show graphic violence, but Janet Jackson's boob pops out and we freak. If we want our young people to be mature and responsible about sexual activity, let's stop treating it like it's more depraved then blowing someone's brains out. Sheesh.

3. Classes on birth control and sex-ed will be a moot point anyway if we continue attacking programs like Planned Parenthood. Viagra may be covered by insurance, but BC is not, and last I checked teen boys aren't rolling in dough to buy condoms with.

mmmmamabear.... I did not suggest abstinence "only" nor "instead of."! I used the word "included," which means NOT excluding "choice."

If sex education does not include abstinence as a viable alternative to other "facts" also being presented, those "other facts" are certainly not any more of an "educational" course than Communism was in Russia.

It is supremely illogical not to choose all the appropriate parameters of Choice. Are you people remotely suggesting that abstinence is not a Choice?

Abstinence from human intercourse is an objective concept. We are not dogs or cats or birds on the trees. We, and our kids, are capable of making choices when we know the whole picture... not a selected one.

And, it IS an option to rely on abstinence to prevent conceiving a child. Why does that frighten you? Our educational system is plummeting downwards in effectiveness and I believe your thinking gives evidence as to why.

Surely there are not parents out there who would actually oppose Abstinence among all the other "Choices" for preventing conception? It is not only the most effective, it is the safest of any introduced so far today. Read the headlines. There are increased sexually transmitted diseases due to problems from pills to condoms.

Abstinence, and that would, in my recommendation, exclude sexual behavior like oral sex as it, too, is not "safer." In today's news, in fact, a study is featured that says women are showing increased HIV resulting from oral sex.

It remains a choice, but if you are not prepared to teach the circuit of pros and cons of all the techniques, it ceases, prima facie, to be a choice, and you shouldn't be teaching Sex Education, and probably no other subject matter where all the facts are necessary. This is especially true of English, Grammar, Writing Skills, and Social Studies (which were college prep in my high school, including History in several eras and the consequences on what came after).

"Selling" contraceptives should certainly not be the goal of teaching about them. Objectivity about what they can do... and what they cannot do... is real teaching; not brainwashing.

Quit blaming the parents. At the same time, parents, keep a healthy eye on just exactly what the teachers are teaching. Most states allow you to observe a class. Drop by. It can be a revelation.

And, btw, I do have some experience to come off the wall with these opinions of mine. Besides being the mother of five children, I hold two education credentials, and more than 20 years teaching experience in public school. I KNOW what teachers can and should do. Don't start telling them how you would do it. Get qualified, get experience, and ten years down the line we might be able to communicate.

As part of sex "education," will the kids be taught that one in five gay men has HIV? (according to WebMD)

Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. It doesn't matter. Sex education needs to drive home the fact that they must assume that a new partner has HIV, VD, Herpes, Hepatitis and take precautions accordingly.

They'll probably be taught that HIV can be transmitted by the blood, semen, and vaginal fluid of any infected person, regardless of gender or orientation, which are the facts.

The data you mention could be useful in emphasizing that people should engage in safe sex, but I doubt that's why you mentioned it. You most likely mentioned it in order to say that gay people are bad, as if that data will somehow stop people from being gay, which shows your complete lack of understanding of sexual orientation.

There is a whole host of reasons why people wouldn't want to be gay, and that list starts with people like you. And yet, people are still gay. Why? Because they don't get a choice in the matter, just like people don't get to choose if they are male or female, right or left handed, blond, brunette, or redhead. You are what you are, and you accept it or you seuffer.

coach - are you seriously comparing the Christian Church with the Taliban? Apparently your education is seriously lacking. I for one am praying that you only "coach" from the sidelines. I want you as far away from teaching children as possible.

coach...As I read the article it made me think that New York seems to be implementing the Sex Ed curriculum taught in Texas schools. Maybe New York is stepping into contemporary times wishes to keep up with the standards of States that lead in our Nation.

"Coach McGuirk" is a fictional character that this person has chosen as their screen name. So you both sound ridiculous trying to use it in the manner you are attempting. And is he calling all Christians terrorists, most likely not. However, radical Christians ready to murder and terrorize their victims do indeed exist in America. They do crazy things like kill abortion doctors and picket at childrens' funerals. So yes there is a form of terrorist within the Christian ranks.

Ok Coach, What is wrong with praying in school, being a virgin and teaching creationism. Evolution is being taught as fact when it can't even be proven to have happened. If more people thought of being a virgin as a good thing, then things would be a lot better then they are. It is really bad when praying is looked at as being bad.

What is wrong with praying in school, being a virgin and teaching creationism.

A lot.

Evolution is being taught as fact when it can't even be proven to have happened.

No, evolution is being taught as a scientific theory, like relativity and gravity. Learn the difference.

If more people thought of being a virgin as a good thing, then things would be a lot better then they are.

And that's why abstinence only programs in highly conservative communities and with deeply religious families works soooo well. /sarc

It is really bad when praying is looked at as being bad.

Ever heard of separation of church and state? Pray quietly to yourself if you like, but if school time/resources/activity is dedicated to in school prayer, it is illegal.

If you have an issue with evolution being taught because it "can't be proven", but have no issue with praying to an invisible man in the sky who can't be proven to exist, I don't think anything is going to convince you that those things are bad. But I'll give it a shot.

Prayer in school is perfectly acceptable, assuming the children do it on their own without any participation from the faculty. If the faculty participates, or it becomes mandated, it violates the freedom of (or from) religion. Schools are for academic education, not religious education.

Being a virgin is a good thing for kids. But expecting that every child is going to stay a virgin until they get married is about as realistic as expecting to win the lottery. Giving kids the information to make educated decisions about sex will hopefully give them the incentive to stay virgins, or at least be safe about it.

And, all evidence indicates that evolution is fact. Look at the African Cichlids in Lake Malawi or Lake Tanganyika. Over a couple of decades, changes in behavior and anatomy (aka evolution) have been observed. Or look at the salamanders that were found in pitch black caves that have vestigial eyes. Or just look at the carbon-14 dating from fossils, indicating that the world is older than 6000 years old. All of this evidence contradicts creationism. The only evidence for creationism is the Bible. I'd rather take empirical evidence as fact over the writings of ancient religious scholars.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state. It only exists in the minds of liberals and progressives. The Constitution says that Congress can't make a law establishing a religion. Praying, reading the Bible or anything like that isn't Congress making a law establishing a relgion.

Praying, reading the Bible or anything like that isn't Congress making a law establishing a [religion].

It is the establishment of religion by the government if it is mandated in public schools. What is it you don't get about that?

What don't you get about it? You have been fed the separation of church and state nonsense for so long that you can't see what the Constitution really says. Congress has yet to make a law establishing a religion.

I don't think Tom said anything about it being mandated by the government. He asked, "What's wrong with praying in school? " No one has answered that question yet.

Would you suggest we ban praying from school? Would you suggest we ban virgins from school? Would you suggest we ban teaching creationism in school?

Good point. Evolution is the WORST teaching possible. It's a theory that has never displayed a shred of evidence, but it is teached like it's Gospel. No pun intended. Even Darwin himself doubted it. Do a search on him.

Before you comment, I know the word should be "taught" not teached - it's a education joke.

juju10junk - read my previous post. I'm pretty sure I answered the question about prayer in school.

And Timothy, if there is no evidence of evolution, please explain the salamanders with vestigial eyes. Or the changes to the African Cichlids that have been observed over the last few decades. Or, better yet, provide some empirical evidence of creationism.

Things adapt all the time, but nothing has ever changed from one species to another.

Praying, reading the Bible or anything like that isn't Congress making a law establishing a relgion.

State-sponsored prayer and bible reading does result in establishing a religion (Christianity) or endorsing one religion over another.

Even Darwin himself doubted it. Do a search on him.

I suggest that you do the search. That Darwin doubted his own theory is a myth that you'll find posted all over christian web site. Try something a little more secular for a change: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

But, it doesn't matter if he changed his mind. Evolution is supported by decades of scientific findings.

@ David-3887522,

Do you not see the irony that your post was even more devoid of evidence and facts than coaches, and they you called him a "simpleton"?

People should be responsible for their own actions, but you completely neglect the fact that since we live in a society, the actions of others affect us. Thus, if the vast majority of teens out there get pregnant and/or contract STDs, it will affect the society and economy in which I live. It will hurt my standard of living. As such, I have a stake in them learning sex ed, as do my children. If their parents abbrogate their responsibility, through apathy or ignorance, don't I have some right to step in?

It's similar to, if parents don't teach their children not to speed, should police not be allowed to ticket them? Should the DMV handbook and driver's ed courses not teach that speeding is dangerous?

Students should be allowed to pray in school on their own time, not led by a mandate or a teacher. If a student wants to pray during lunch or recess or study hall, they should go right ahead. That's freedom. What they shouldn't do is try to make anyone else pray who doesn't want to.

The Bible used to be part of the curriculum of US schools and no one had a problem with prayer in schools. Then Someone took the phrase "Separation of Church and State" (which is not in any of our founding documents) and started using it when it was never meant to be used for national policy.

Things adapt all the time, but nothing has ever changed from one species to another.

The definition of evolution is a change over time of inherited traits. If things adapt, and those adaptations are passed on to their offspring, that is, by definition, evolution.

Now with gay marriage, the kids need to know that if the wrong wee-wee's touch, Jesus will burn them in hell for all eternity.

It is really sad to read posts like Tom Caselli's above. his total lack of undestanding of science is breathtaking. He reminds me of a Bumper Sticker I once saw:

"Don't pray in my classroom and I won't think in your church"

Tom, if you're not going to use your head, then perhaps you should avoid reading articles like this.

Gumps How is it sad to read posts that make sense? If you are so smart, why don't you enlighten everybody.

Tom

You are completely wrong about evolution and every single species on Earth evolved from some other species. Creationism should never be taught in school in any context other than mythology. Creationism is not only not science, it is the opposite of science. Creationism has no evidence to back it up and more than that the whole premise of creationism is that the "believers" start with what they believe is the truth, select "evidence" that they believe supports their point of view and reject all evidence to the contrary, whether or not they have a rational reason for rejecting that evidence.

Imagine what kind of judicial system we would have if we followed the "creationist" method. No real evidence would be required. People could begin a trial with a belief, guilty or not guilty. Evidence could be ignored for any reason including "I just don't care to believe it."

Creationism is supported by no evidence. Creationism defies critical or rational thinking. Creationism is a myth that was written in the book of Genesis by some anonymous person about which we know exactly nothing, not even his or her name. Someone spread the story that this writing was the "word of God" and way too many people believed it.

Tom, your posts make no sense because you pick and choose the facts that you wish to see as being true.

Evolution is not the only thing on which you completely miss the point.

The Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution, but the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, is credited with interpretting the first amendment as building a wall between Church and State. Supreme Court cases have used his interpretation when deciding cases on this very subject matter, so there is a legal basis for the separation of church and state, regardless of whether or not the words appear in the Constitution.

Tom - you're mistaken. Here's 3 of your original statements about the Constitution.

"Someone took the phrase "Separation of Church and State" (which is not in any of our founding documents) and started using it when it was never meant to be used for national policy." "You have been fed the separation of church and state nonsense for so long that you can't see what the Constitution really says." "There is no such thing as separation of church and state. It only exists in the minds of liberals and progressives."

============

Tom, some people dispute your interpretation of the establishment clause in the first amendment of the Constitution. Here's the "liberal progressive" man who wrote it.

<< James Madison >>

Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance. (James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822)

The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State. (James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432)

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J M on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.) ( James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments"; original parenthetical notes by James Madison)

And here's another "liberal progressive" man who disagrees with you.

<< Thomas Jefferson >>

Erecting the wall of separation between church and state, therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

Contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion…thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802)

===========

Tom, I wonder why they felt it was so important to erect a "all of separation between church and state. Could it be that they saw Christianity as a threat to liberty? Let's let them answer this question.

===========

Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects. (James Madison, letter to Bradford, January 1774)

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814)

History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813)

===========

Tom, I hope these guys were able to correct your thinking.

don, you say that creationism defies critical or rational thinking. How can you say that evolution is rational? No one can prove at all that one species has ever turned into another species. The only thing that we ever see are humans coming from humans, cats from cats, dogs from dogs etc. You say that we don't know anything about the author of Genesis. That is not true. We know exactly who it was. Nobody spread the idea that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible itself says it is the Word of God and there isn't any legitimate reason to believe otherwise. You or anybody else can believe it or not. That is your Choice. God gave everybody a free will.

The Bible itself says it is the Word of God and there isn't any legitimate reason to believe otherwise.

In other words, the bible is vouching for itself? Talk about circular reasoning!

Tom - so because a fish never evolved from a chicken, evolution is not rational?

Evolution isn't about big changes all at once. It's about small changes over long periods of time that eventually lead to big differences.

And, "because the Bible says so" isn't evidence that the Bible is true. It's just evidence that the guys who wrote it wanted people to believe it.

Tom

The credibility of evolutionary theory has been demonstrated countless times. Just because you avoid educating yourself on the subject does not mean that it does not exist.

You say that God gave everyone free will. I'm sure you believe God also gave humans the ability for rational thought. Why not take advantage of that gift?

Please tell me the author of the Book of Genesis and, while you are at it, tell me how he knew all what he recorded in his book. Do you really think that all of those guys, in the days before medical science, lived to be hundreds of years old, and that they were still fathering children at ages beyond what any modern human has lived? Why would you believe that? Other humans told you it was true ..... that is the only reason.

Jim, Why would they think Christianity is a threat to liberty when a lot of them were Christians? If they thought that God and the Bible should be separated from government, then why did Congress authorize the printing of 10,000 Bibles in the late 1700's and why did church services meet in the Capitol building in the early 1800's? Since you like quotes so much, I will print two for you. John Adams said "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." George Washington said "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly to implore His protection and favor."

Tom - Congress never authorized the bibles that were printed by Robert Aitken. They certified them as being textually accurate because England would not export any Bibles to the US. They did not authorize them, commission them, or in any other way endorse the printing. Just because Glenn Beck said it doesn't make it true.

I didn't say Glenn Beck said anything.

Tom - way to pick the one part of my post that you can refute and ignore everything that would prove you wrong.

I just assumed because most of the "Congress printed bibles" claims are coming from either Glenn Beck or David Barton, and Beck seems to have more viewers.

Tom, Tom, Tom.

NONE of the Founding fathers were Christians. NONE of the first 7 Presidents (50 years) was a Christian.

I have NEVER come across anything about printing Bibles or church services in the Capitol (and I have studied the era in great depth). The Adams quote mentions morality but Jesus and God are conspicuously absent. I am familiar with the Washington quote, but he is certainly NOT talking about the Biblical God. That quote is often misused by Christian activists, so I am sorry of they've led you astray. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were Deists, John Adams was a Unitarian, Ben Franklin was an atheist.

When the Founders were talking about Tyranny and Oppression, they were talking about an alliance between Christianity and Government, and I believe my other quotes point that out.

In case you are still confused, here are some other quotes from the Founding fathers specifically about Christianity.

===========

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." (Thomas Paine)

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." (Thomas Jefferson)

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" (John Adams)

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" (John Adams)

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world." (John Adams)

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." (Benjamin Franklin)

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution." (Benjamin Franklin)

"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshiped by many who think themselves Christians." (Thomas Jefferson)

"The priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live." (Thomas Jefferson)

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." (Thomas Jefferson)

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." (James Madison)

=============

Tom, I got LOTS more if you still need them. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding of the Founding Fathers' hatred of Christianty.

Jim, No misunderstanding, it just sounds like you hate Christianity.

Jim - church services were actually held in the Capitol building, under both Jefferson and Madison.

It's not because they wanted a Christian nation, but rather because they realized that religon was a useful prop for a republican government.

Jim, It took me only a couple of minutes to find information about the printing of Bibles and having church services in the Capitol building. The information is out there. If George Washington wasn't talking about the Biblical God, then who was he talking about? Sounds like the Biblical God to me.

"A useful prop for a republican government". That sounds like something that might be done now, not back then. I somehow doubt that was the reasoning.

Tom - it only took me a couple of minutes to find credible information refuting your information about the printing of bibles.

And, there is a big difference between a republican government, and a Republican government. A republic is a government that has a head of state that isn't a monarch, like the US system that has a President. A Republican is someone who belongs to a specific political party.

And, why am I not surprised that you doubt something that all credible evidence indicates is true?

Using something as a prop sounds like something that would be done today. I don't care about the word republican. I was just talking about using something as a prop.

From Tom Caselli - “Jim, No misunderstanding, it just sounds like you hate Christianity.”

Tom – I do not hate Christianity. I simply don’t think it’s right to put words into the mouths of the Founding Fathers – so I let them speak for themselves. In fact, Tom, I am a semi-retired Reverend (Missouri Synod Lutheran). I just also love American history.

From Tom Caselli - “Jim, It took me only a couple of minutes to find information about the printing of Bibles and having church services in the Capitol building. The information is out there.”

Tom - When I do historical research, I almost NEVER use the internet – it can be deceptive. I go to the Library of Congress, the National Archives, collections of letters held in Presidential libraries, other writings in private collections and public archives etc. I also read books and articles that date from the time period of the founding of America.

From ILikeTurtles – “Jim - church services were actually held in the Capitol building, under both Jefferson and Madison. It's not because they wanted a Christian nation, but rather because they realized that religon was a useful prop for a republican government.”

ILike Turtles - Beyond any doubt whatsoever, Madison and Jefferson were not Christians. Certainly, neither ever attended nor approved of any “church services in the Capitol”. But it’s somewhat true that they distrusted the average American’s morals and thought the morality of a generic religion would be beneficial. They certainly waivered a lot on that though.

From Tom Caselli - “If George Washington wasn't talking about the Biblical God, then who was he talking about? Sounds like the Biblical God to me.”

Tom - Washington was referring to the God of HIS OWN faith – Deism. Deism believes there is a creator, but the creator never intervenes in people’s lives; there is no “sin” in Deism, nor is there any “prayer” or “angels” or “Holy Ghost”; you might say Deism is a belief in the truths of Science as set in motion by a Creator who then walked away from his creation.

The Deist Founding Fathers spoke of the Creator, Providence, the Divine, the Hand of the Almighty, etc., but almost never slipped and used the word “god”. The language of Deism is especially prevalent in the Declaration of Independence. There is no reference at all to Jesus in any of those founding documents.

If you want to know more about Deism as practiced by the Founding Fathers, read the writings of the most prominent “preacher” of Deism in those times – Elihu Palmer.

Jim, I never said that Jefferson or Madison was a Christian. But, Jefferson and Madison both regularly attended church services at the Capitol, as least according to evidence provided by the Library of Congress.

Education is not control; it is information.

Information is power, so actually this is the opposite of your knee jerk reaction.

"Education is not control; it is information"

lol...depends on the education...more often than not it is about control and "indoctrination" than it is about actual information...teach children to be dependant on the government and they will grow up dependant on the government,...we have several generations who have been taught exactly that....the irony is that most of them think they are more intelligant than anyone else...aparently nobody taught them a little humility along with thier indoctrination.

YEAH, right on, Tor! While we're at it, let's get rid of math, too! I HATE math! Stupid government, telling me I need to know how to add and subtract.

The thing is, all education is government mandated. If you want to complain about the government controlling us and running our lives, social or not, then you have to support the abolishment of all required education.

Dear Evil Miss Alice - NO, all education is NOT government mandated.

In my state, I can homeschool with NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. Guess what - I don't need to teach math if I don't want! Oh, and if I want to send my child to a private school - guess what! The government doesn't mandate that either!

Oh, and I live in a state that has supported the Dems for years.

Juju,

I'm sure someone else can speak more intelligently than I can, but I'm pretty sure that it isn't true that you can homeschool and not teach math, at least not everywhere. You can homeschool your child, but they must be able to demonstrate certain skills in order to be accredited by the state. I'm pretty sure basic math is among those skills.

SteveYo,

Look up Charlotte Iserbyt who worked at the Department of Education from 1980 to 1982.

She found the documents that show the federal government and tax exempt foundations are changing the education system from fundamental academic study that amounts to operant conditioning dog training. We are several generations into this new form of education. This will hit home to anyone who has been miseducated in a public school during the last 40 years.

juju, education is government mandated. school being mandated by the government doesn't mean they have to go to a government facility it means they have to attend school somewhere, otherwise you face jail time and fines.

With all due respect, Matt and Hatr Huter, you are wrong about my having to teach math or send my children to school. I can homeschool and not teach math in my state, if I choose so. This is not the case in all states, but it is here. My child does not need to demonstrate any skills to anyone. My child does not have to "attend school somewhere" so that I don't face fines or jail. This is simply untrue.

Different states have different requirements. Some states believe that the government knows what is better for the children than the parents.

In my state, a child in the public schools CANNOT get a high school diploma unless he or she can pass Algebra 2. The laws for homeschooling are different.

Now, all that being said about my not having to teach math (or sex ed or anything else), I and most other homeschoolers teach math because it is necessary in life. I homeschool so my children get a superior education to what they would get in the public schools.

BTW, children are not "accredited". Some schools are, and private schools may choose to go through the accreditation process or not. Some homeschool curriculum providers also offer an accredited school in which the child may enroll. The child does the work required by the school, at home, and sends it in for grading. That is one option. However, parents do not "accredit" their homeschool.

Again, I will re-iterate that the laws here are different than in other states. Since Evil Miss Alice stated , "The thing is, all education is government mandated", I was letting her know that this is NOT the case.

HSLDA has information on the state by state requirements for homeschooling. No surprise that NY is a "high regulation" state.

In my state, a child in the public schools CANNOT get a high school diploma unless he or she can pass Algebra 2. The laws for homeschooling are different.

In other words, if I'm an employer in your state, I'm going to consider a homeschooling education to be worthless.

JuJu,

Can you provide what state you live in, and the statute pertaining to educational requirements, so as to back up your claim?

People who were parents at 15 and grand parents at 30. I know some great-grand parents who are in their mid 40's.

Sex ed is a very good idea and needs to be taught in school because it is obviously NOT being taught in the home.

richard, I don't know, but undoubtedly they will pick an age/stage in life far after the majority of these kids will actually be having sex.

Lexi, I agree sex eduction needs to be taught to the children, yes as young as 11. But I do think the parents and school districts need to work together on this, there are some parts that are totally appropriate for school ( the bio part of it, the science part of it ) and others that MUST be taught at home ( the morals and ethics ) since not everyone shares the same morals and ethics. The big problem, as you stated, is that not all parents take on this responsibility. I know I don't want anyone telling my kids it is ok to have sex out of marriage, so I've had that discussion with them. But, at the same time, someone HAS to tell the young teens whose parents have multiple kids to multiple partners about abstinence and contraception, I'm not so naive as to think kids raised with no rules or good examples will willingly and easily rise up to higher standards. And those likely are the ones who will have kids and be a drain on society. So, yes, it does need to be mandated and taught; but there has to be a lot of transparency and action by all parties involved.

I was wondering the same thing. Well, guess what, got some news for you, public school system, humans are at the approriate age, (biologically speaking, of course), from puberty! Is that what you're going to teach them? Yet one more reason good private school enrollment lists are so highly competitive.

Your point is lost because your statement is ridiculous. I can safely answer for the public school system. No. And no one is stupid enough to actually think they would teach that.

We had sex ed in fifth grade...a LONG time ago. Girls in one room. Boys in another. Not a big deal at all. Just biology and physiology. In high school they went into the STD's and AIDS. My mother was grateful I think. She told me to ask her if I had any questions. But when I did, her response was always something along the lines of "Nice young ladies don't do that." So I stopped asking her.

My daughter is asking the questions now. And I'm answering them with age appropriate honesty, and without judgement (I hope). It starts pretty early. Years ago she came home from kindergarten and told me that a girl in class told her that if a boy sees your underwear, he will fall in love with you.
On your marks, get set....

You obviously do not live in NYC where it is common for 10-11 year olds to come to 5th grade classes pregnant. If there is a way to give these kids a liitle information, do it. The parents are out to lunch. There are many women my age(30's) who are grandmothers. It's a generational problem, for sure. It's not like the're TELLING them to have sex. That's already happening. Saying nothing and leaving it to parents only works when the parents care. It becomes a problem for all of society when they don't.

Mom- there you go, take the responsibility off the parents and let taxpayers do their job. Do you ever wonder why we are a welfare state?

Common? I don't think so dear.

@lola - she said "nice young ladies don't do that"???? Sorry to say this, but your mother is an uptight prude.

Well at least you learned from her mistakes and are willing to actually talk with your children. Good for you.

Jeremy, if we are indeed a welfare state - then show me a country that is NOT a welfare state. You know, a country where the government does nothing for its people.

I'll do it for you - Afghanistan.

Yeah let's do that instead of our terrible welfare state!

The facts are sex ed leads to lower birth rates and lower rates of STDs. Every single "welfare state" around the world with sex ed has low rates of teenage pregnancies, lower rates of abortions, and almost nonexistent, teenage chlamydia, gonorrheal, and HPV infections when compared to countries like the USA that takes a prudish approach to the facts of life. Kids who make virginity pledges are just paying you lip service as they will have sex anyway at the same ages as kids that get sex ed. The difference is that the kids who just "say no to sex" end up not using contraception, getting pregnant, and getting infected.

Jeremy, the parents abrogated their responsibility so the state had to pick it up for the good of everyone. I'm all for parents teaching their children about sex (assuming they have the facts, which sadly most parents don't), but when the parents DON'T do so, what is your answer?

radagast- we are are a welfare state due to the amount we give out. I and 99% of others do not mind helping people in need. Sorry though, if you lay down and get pregnant than you are not in need, you have a responsibility, now get a job and take care of you and your child. No, instead taxpayers have to shell out the bill for Medicaid, hospital bills, WIC, Food Stamps, free daycare, free housing, free education (not public school but normally a GED program)....need I go on? So yes, it is ridiculous and people like you love the system because they need the system.

Secondly, do you have kids? If so, learn to parent and take responsibility for your kids. Glad that you think kids can not be honorable or true to their values. Do you have a soul?

Mom- there you go, take the responsibility off the parents and let taxpayers do their job.

Based on that argument, we should close all schools and let parents provide whatever level of education they deem appropriate. In the meantime, the Europeans and Chinese will walk all over us because our children will have no skills.

isis - in many ways, yes, she is. But she's from a different generation. The pre-internet-sexting-sexual liberation-equality age. She was also raised Catholic, which is not a comment about ALL Catholics. Only her as she brought it up quite a bit in relation to a woman's place in this world. Let's just say...I am really not Catholic.
Again, not a commentary, just a fact.

@lola - the way you've expanded on it helped me better understand why she was that way. But I'm glad there are parents like you, who learned from all that, and are willing to be open with their kids.

Yes, they will. You have problem with that?

smwboxer- as a parent, I would. Some people have stronger morals than others. Children should not be required to be subjected to values that are not comparable with our own.

That is why schools are for education not social equality.

Some people have stronger morals than others.

Agreed. I have a strong sense of morality based upon objective theories and equality. Conversely, we have the religious types...

Well in NYC we believe is having well rounded students that are informed off all aspects of life and then allowed to form their own opinions.

Now do you see why some people have objected to sex education in schools?

There is absolutely nothing wrong about teaching about the biological parts of the sex function nor even birth control but when it crosses over into social education, people are going to object.

To teach about homosexuality in a sex education class is crossing the line to a LARGE segment of this country and not just religious people either.

sooo....jeremy, what you are clearly saying is that social equality has no place in public schools. that's beyond despicable. moreover, you are saying that children should only experience values that are the same as there own...wwoooooowwww.....that's moronic. what "children should not be required to be subjected to" is your special brand of small-minded bigotry.

huh? why even bring up heterosexual vs. homosexual. they're not being taught how or who to have sex with. they're taught how to prevent unwanted pregnancy and stds and std prevention is the same whether heterosexual or homosexual.

" why even bring up heterosexual vs. homosexual"

i completely agree,..other than to mention that they exist...but i still think its a waste of money,..lazy inadiquate parents should do your job....and stop relying on (expensive) sub-standard information passed on from big government to the deaf ears of kids who according to studies will listen to parents more than anyone else on the subject of sex, provided the parent is willing to discuss it honestly and with common sense...of course it helps if the parent actually knows something about the subject.

cold- thanks for reading way more into my posts to try and paint me as some bigoted person.

No, my first thought is there is no place for sex ed in schools. That is what parenting is for. If you have kids then be responsible. I for one do not want my kids to be taught about the birds and the bees, safe sex or anything else by some teacher. That is my job and my right as a parent.

Secondly, we have made EVERYTHING exceptable and sorry but I do not find glorifying being homosexual as morally correct. I could care less if someone is gay, in fact I came from a town where probably 40% of it is gay especially in the summer.

So when schools are ready to teach real values and morals that is great. Unfortunetly, kids are now FORCED to approve of everyone whether morally right or wrong.

40% of it is gay especially in the summer

I didn't know that homosexuality was seasonal.

, it can be....heterosexuality is seasonal too....i live in florida and we get a million heterosexual snowbirds every winter....and a few gay ones to.

PAV- well actually in a summer resort town it is. Many came from 3 major citites in the summer to vacation where I grew up. I knew alot of them, worked with them in restaurants, even had a gay roommate. Actually the rate is much higher than 40% in the summer. MANY families have stopped going due to this fact.

There are places in this town in the summer when I return that I will not take me kids. They are still young but I don't believe they need to see this type of behavior. I could care less what someone else does but I am an adult, I can make those decisions. Also being an adult with children I get to make their decisions as well.

Holy @!$%# people! Now the newest push back against sex ed is homosexuality indoctrination?

Where do you people get this crap? The teachers aren't going to be giving their students instructions on different types of sex acts -hetero or homo. They aren't pushing an agenda. Why is it that the prudest among us always create phantoms to be afraid of just so they can convince themselves not to do something? They are just giving the facts about how to protect yourself and your partner from pregnancy and disease. Give your children the credit they deserve. They are more grown up about this stuff than their parents and they deserve a little knowledge!

"The teachers aren't going to be giving their students instructions on different types of sex acts -hetero or homo."

well i think thier fears are well founded,...there are plenty of examples where this has occured....while i dont think that is happening in NY ....yet....it very well may,.. what they say they will do today doesnt mean they wont change it up a few years or months down the road.

"Give your children the credit they deserve. They are more grown up about this stuff than their parents and they deserve a little knowledge!"

this statement is utter baloney....if it were true then we wouldnt see the unitended pregnancies/ STD rates that we see in teens.....kids are not adults....lack of impulse control, hormonally driven sexual agression.....etc etc....are not attributes of being "more grown up" ....get a clue.

Excuse me, but do you people HONESTLY think that if they don't learn that tab A fits into slot B in a health class, the kids won't figure it out for themselves? That half of them don't already know this BEFORE sex ed class? It's a natural urge that people were doing LONG before sex ed was even thought of. So the idea that "if we don't teach it, they won't do it" is ludicrous.

Secondly, teen's lack of impulse control is EXACTLY the reason that sex ed is important. They don't think ahead, so you do it for them. You tell them, this is what could happen if you do, you could get this disease, you could end up pregnant, which means you can't do this and this and this that you wanted to do.

I swear, by your logic, we shouldn't teach kindergarteners "no hitting" because that will cause violence among toddlers.

radaghast- aren't pushing an agenda???? Do you need to listen of the clips of school kids chanting like monks Obama in the classroom?

Matt- keeping pushing your responsibility onto the government.

To teach about homosexuality in a sex education class is crossing the line to a LARGE segment of this country and not just religious people either.

Why? These classes are intended to provide students with basic information about sexuality, and how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease. Don't gay students also deserve information about how to protect themselves? Oh, right. They don't. They're gay.

Barry, I don't think that is what he was saying. The same STD prevention methods work hetero or homo. I believe what he is addressing is the fear some have that in the sex ed classes it will be put forward, by a person in authority, that homosexuality is equally acceptable and ok, when to those people this is not true.

From Jeremy –

“Secondly, we have made EVERYTHING exceptable and sorry but I do not find glorifying being homosexual as morally correct.” “So when schools are ready to teach real values and morals that is great. Unfortunetly, kids are now FORCED to approve of everyone whether morally right or wrong.”

Jeremy – If someone is born black or white, does that make them immoral automatically, just by being born that way? Personally, I don’t think parents should teach their children that all white people are immoral.

People are BORN homosexual, just like they’re born with blue eyes or red hair. Homosexuality cannot be learned; it cannot be taught. Homosexuality is NOT a “moral” issue.

From Jeremy –

“Secondly, we have made EVERYTHING exceptable and sorry but I do not find glorifying being homosexual as morally correct.” “So when schools are ready to teach real values and morals that is great. Unfortunetly, kids are now FORCED to approve of everyone whether morally right or wrong.”

Jeremy – If someone is born black or white, does that make them immoral automatically, just by being born that way? Personally, I don’t think parents should teach their children that all white people are immoral.

People are BORN homosexual, just like they’re born with blue eyes or red hair. Homosexuality cannot be learned; it cannot be taught. Homosexuality is NOT a “moral” issue.

From Todd –

“I get pissed off when I drive by public housing and see a bunch of perfectly healthy people sitting on their butts while I pay their air conditioning bill every month.”

Todd – you must be super intelligent! You can drive by a bunch of sitting people, and make a medical diagnosis that they’re all perfectly healthy - just by looking. The medical profession needs your expertise. Also, you can tell, just by looking, that you’re paying their air conditioning bills. Do you need to be pissed off for your clairvoyance to work?

From Jeremy –

“From free Medicaid for them and the baby, free food stamps, free WIC, free daycare while they get a free education not in a public school and free housing. Need I go on.”

Jeremy – would you eliminate “free Medicaid, free housing, free food stamps”? How about free utility assistance? Free health insurance? Disability payments? Let me tell you about someone who is getting ALL of these benefits.

I had a roommate 3 years ago. She was a nice person. When she was 3 years old, she was diagnosed with a fatal disease. Her parents were told that she would not live past the age of 6. She is now 51 years old.

The costs of the medications that keep her alive exceed $5000 per month. Every month. That’s over $60,000 per year. She also must see several medical specialists every month and I’m sure those fees are substantial (probably over $1000 a month). She also must be hospitalized several times per year, and that isn’t cheap either.

If she had to pay for all that medical care, her after-tax income would have to exceed $100,000 per year. Any of her additional after-tax earnings would then be applied toward her normal living expenses, the expenses all the rest of us have.

Nobody is ever going to hire her. If she loses those benefits, she loses her life.

It’s not HER fault she has these medical conditions. It’s not HER fault the medical care is so expensive. She’s not “using the system”. She’s not “scamming” anyone.

If you think these benefits should be eliminated, then you are sentencing her to death. You are also doing the same to your own children should (God forbid) anything similar happen to them.

Jeremy,

Just wondering how many days you've spent working with and speaking to, those who you so easily write off. You see, I was an in-home social worker in Detroit, a youth counselor at a "last chance" camp for adjudicated youth, and a volunteer in Detroit public schools. So needless to say, I have some experience with the demographic your b(*$%ing about. I mean, have you ever sat down with someone, who comes from generations of poverty and listened to his/her story? Sure, there are those that take advantage, but I'd rather let them collect and help the good ones, then stop giving all together and let the honest ones starve. And, overall, through out all of my experience, I can honestly tell you, the "moochers" are few and far between.

Of course, I'm sure you'll say something like "I grew up poor and made it just fine!" Or maybe you'll say you knew someone who made it out of poverty. In the 10 years that I've been working in this field, I've yet to meet any anti-government assistance person, who HASN'T pulled himself out of extreme, gripping, poverty. I wonder why? Maybe because they lie about it, since admitting that they don't know what poverty feels like and complaining about "welfare" makes them look like the jacka(#$*es they really are.

I'm wondering if you have a solution. I've seen how cyclical poverty and ignorance can be. How is a "welfare mom" going to teach her daughter about sex ed, if she herself doesn't know the basics? And then, if the school doesn't teach it, how will that daughter learn?

Finally, let's have a vernacular lesson. Morals are your own personal beliefs that guide your behaviors. They're individual. Therefore what you or I feel is moral may differ, ergo "morals" belong no where in our educational system, except within the individual minds/hearts of the students and staffs. Norms, or morees are wide ranging beliefs/actions of a society. Morees say, killing is wrong, morals say why killing is personally wrong to each of us. That's why it kills me when people start screaming about "decaying morals". Personally, my morals tell me alot of folks like you didn't have any morals to decay in the first place. But again, that's just my morals.

I could go on about the hypocritical fundementalist Christians, and their agenda. I have actual legal proof of how they're trying to invade our laws and debase our freedom. But, le sigh, if you've made it to the age you are now and haven't learned to think, why should I assume I could get through to you.

Jeremy, I think that kids today know what homosexuality is. I also don't believe that if the sex education class talks about it that the kids are going to turn gay. I think that the classes are more about the biology of sex and will talk about prevention and protection against STD's. I know when I was in the military they showed pictures that made you want to keep it in your pants. I think that they need to do that in these classes. I think instead of talking about STD's, they need to show the the results to the body from those diseases. I believe it would be a bigger deterrent than just talking. Like the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. I agree that it is the parents responsibility to explain about sex, but just because you tell your child not to do it doesn't mean they will listen. I can explain how the body works and the changes that the body goes through but these classes will actually have a more thorough explanation. I also can explain what I think that they should do. I taught my son what I wanted him to know and he threw it out the window and did what he wanted to. Heck, I know that he lost his virginity before he was 16 not because I didn't explain about prevention and protection but because it was offered and he didn't refuse the offer. You are not with your children 24 hours a day and if they have a chance most will take it. It is the parents job to teach about sex but I am glad that the schools will also help.

Your comment shows your classist, racist attitudes AND your level of ignorance (or possibly stupidity). Not everyone in NY is a "welfare mama" and yes the fact that sexual activity is high is the reason for the classes. I'm willing to bet your state has poor people on welfare as well. So do you hate them for being poor or just not being like you?

So Todd, are you against these people actually knowing how to prevent their situations from happening?

Toby- I don't hate anyone. I'm originally from New York, now live in Georgia. I resent people who leach off the system and provide nothing in return other than perpetuating a sense of entitlement. I get pissed off when I drive by public housing and see a bunch of perfectly healthy people sitting on their butts while I pay their air conditioning bill every month. I know 32 year old grandmothers who have never been married or held a job. Who do you think is paying for them, their babies, and their grand babies?

Don't hate me for stating the obvious. I'm not upper class, not a racist, and definitely not ignorant of the moochers who leech off the taxpayers sweat. There is nothing wrong with poor people as long as they are willing to work and improve their situation in life.

Toby- you must have never worked in the system or really been around it. For the majority of them, including many "parents", if you want to call them that, they do have babies and mooch off the system.

From free Medicaid for them and the baby, free food stamps, free WIC, free daycare while they get a free education not in a public school and free housing. Need I go on.

Oh by the way, I am white, have worked with hundreds and hundreds of black youth and young adults. I know how they work the system and how the system wants them to keep coming back.

No Steve, I'm all for them learning how to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Allowing the school system to teach your children what you should be teaching them at home is never a good thing. Morals are learned from parents. The problem with some of these kids is their parent(s) probably had them when they were that age. Do as I say not as I do doesn't work well with kids today.

Toby, you need some racial sensitivity training.

I don't think Todd mentioned anything about race.

Really, you think kids having sex are only doing it so they can get government checks? Does anyone at 16 think that way? Education is the KEY to maybe keeping teens from having babies and being a drain on society.

They need to be taught that they have options, and how to use those options, should they choose to have sex. And, maybe like they have the "Scared Straight" trips to jails, they could do something showing the kids how having children while still a child screwed up the lives of some people who made that decision?

Wow Kanard is a real mouthpiece for the uneducated.

If govt stopped funding sex ed, condom givaways and free needle exchange programs...

So, in other words you're for unprotected sex, and junkies sharing needles? Maybe you've been living under a rock for the last few decades, but there's this disease out there called AIDS, and those programs you're against are to help prevent the way it spreads, and it kills people, and it's incurable...

Once again. "Coach McGuirk" is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER that he chose as his screen name. Saying "coach" with quotation marks is not insulting him, it's just making you look daft. Although I'm not sure how you could make yourself seem any less educated than your rambling comment does. Oh, and unprotected sex and unplanned pregnancy is a problem for people from ANY political party, not just liberals. Remember little Bristol Palin?

Well..maybe this is the fruit of their actions. Yes, Prohibition, let people do what they want; just don't allow the govt to fund it.

Y'all are funny. smwboxer, I'm sure that kids understand having sex leads to having kids and they choose to anyways. They figure if they are unlucky and have one, then they can just have a nice life on government cheese.

Prohibition, I know there is AIDS out there but if we take away those programs, that means less government budget so first win. If people aren't getting it for free, their only choice is buying, not using it, or quit. If they buy, money pumped into the economy so second win. It they just don't use anything, then they probably will want to get themselves checked out and their partners which leads to testing which costs money which helps the economy. If the just quit, then we have lower pregnancies that are unwanted, making less people on government money to provide for the kids and so win again. I know there are downsides but there are downsides to every logical decision.

You assume that these kids and thier parents care, and are smart! This is for the kids that really don't stand a chance. Visit the South Bronx projects sometime and then tell me your plan again?

What about personal reponsibility of the parents? If govt stopped funding sex ed, condom givaways and free needle exchange programs, maybe we would see a drop in risky behavior as sugar daddy Uncle Sam won't be paying the bill.

Right... It's been conclusively shown that sex ed reduces unwanted and teen pregnancies. And since you and I pay for these unwanted children through welfare, I'm pleased that we are having sex ed.

Get it through your thick skull: these programs save you money. Period.

"What about personal reponsibility of the parents?"

If the parents aren't responsible, the rest of us (including the kids) pay the price. When it happens a lot, it becomes a huge problem for the society we live in. So, since we live in a mutually cooperative society, it is up to the rest of us to resolve the problem in order to ease the burden of having idiots in our society.

If you want to go back to Hunter/Gatherer days, go live somewhere else.

"If the parents aren't responsible, the rest of us (including the kids) pay the price. "

only because you want to pay the price....when you live in a society that rewards bad behavior then what you get is alot of bad behavior...then the libral response is to throw money at the problem further rewarding bad behavior...which is "us paying the price" take away the rewards and the bad behavior mysteriously goes away...thats what negative consiquences do, they inhibit most normal thinking individuals from engaging in behavior that will result in something bad happening....there will always be some people who will not comply....so sorry for them...but thats how you weed out the "stupids" from the "smarts"..lol.

"Prohibition" would work if it had been enforced. Instead there were enough criminals benefitting to prevent it from being enforced. By criminals, I do not mean moonshiners or drug dealers; I mean law enforcement agents and politicians who look the other way with their other hand out for their percentage of the take. "junkies sharing needles . . . it kills people." As with gangs, as long as they are only killing each other, who cares? I am only sad when innocent bystanders are affected. It must be a humane death, or the preferred death penalty currently in use would not be "lethal injection," right?

That's a simpletonian concept, "ok". Your idea only works if it's the same person. But in the real work, after that person comes another from a right-wing religious family who knows nothing about anything so has to experience and learn themselves. Education prevents that.

"That's a simpletonian concept, "ok". Your idea only works if it's the same person"

i dont know about that mister Rick....im pretty sure it would work.....like i said some people would have to suffer....but i doubt even religous folks would want to have to foot the full bill for an unitended pregnancy...if they had to, you know they will be discussing sex and contraception with thier kids faster than you can say "back ally abortion"

"only because you want to pay the price"

What? What exactly do you mean by that?

Females get pregnant when they are not financially capable of caring for the child, and in many cases are just plain incompetent. So, many kids get sent to orphanages or adoption agencies (which are basically the same thing). Who pays for their care? WE ALL DO! It is more cost effective to pay teachers teach comprehensive sex ed than it is to pay for State Care for unwanted children.

"when you live in a society that rewards bad behavior then what you get is alot of bad behavior"

What are you talking about? Cite some examples, otherwise you are just talking out your ass.

"...then the libral response is to throw money at the problem further rewarding bad behavior."

The neocon response is to throw money at those who CAUSE or WORSEN the problem, thus further rewarding bad behavior.

"take away the rewards and the bad behavior mysteriously goes away"

Again, you are full of it and are clueless.

I love some of these conservatives. Don't wanna pay for welfare, but expect the same welfare recipients they write off as lazy and ignorant to be able to teach their children responsibility. Can't have it both ways, guys.

Brian, I'm sure they know about what could happen but they still risk it because as a teen, you only think about the near future and what you can do to make it feel good. Still great post though.

Ten minutes? These are teenagers -- wouldn't it be more like 10 SECONDS??

yeah - we should keep this country as the founding fathers had! everyone is a foot shorter, dies by 30, rides horses, lives by candle light and thinks bathing and sanitation is the devil! booooooo progress!!!

NY is implementing this because teenage pregnancies and STDs are a real threat. Which is cheaper: teaching teenagers how to use condoms and get birth control, and how to protect themselves, or having a bunch of 16 year old get pregnant and spread STDs.

Many parents are too embarrassed and uncomfortable teaching their children sex ed. Words like "penis" and "vagina" are dirty to them, and they don't want to talk to their children about it. So it's either the kids rely on Google for their information, rely on what their friends say, or they get it taught to them at school by a person trained in this topic.

Knowledge is power. Teaching them age appropriate sex ed will help them make better decisions. It should even start younger than they are saying, it should begin with young children learning the proper names of their body parts, and the differences between 'good touch' and 'bad touch'. Teaching them how to defend themselves against STDs and unwanted pregnancies is not going to turn them all into trollops. It will empower them to use protection.

Right on! Who is the government to decide what we need to learn! And while we're at it, let's get rid of math and science. Who are they to tell us we have to know that stuff!

The founding fathers SHOULDN'T recognize this country. They meant for it to change and grow. Heck, Jefferson recommended tearing up the Constitution every 10 years or so and writing it from scratch because times will have changed the country. Get an education about "The Republic" before your start defending it for the rest of us.

So you are against a public education system?

Public education is paid for by the public because, long ago, it was determined that an educated public was necessary for a democracy - that is, government by the people, for the people - to function. Otherwise, people such as myself who have no children would be unfairly taxed - why should I pay for other people's kids to have an education? Answer: because everyone's kids affect how this country is run in the next generation, and because of that, I want them to be as smart, clever, well-informed, and able to think for themselves as they possibly can be.

Which means I don't want them learning somebody's religious dogma.

I want them to learn to be smart and caring and careful in relationships.

I want them to think carefully, reject stupid assertions, plan long-term, and vote their conscience.

Who knows? Maybe democracy will survive...

That's why everything needs to be covered, at least at some point in the courses.

This is not a one size fits all topic

I think it is. We all have the same parts and all sex education is explaining how the body changes and how pregnancy happens and how to prevent it from happening. Also, it will be explaining STD's and how to prevent them. I would prefer kids to wait but if you look throughout history, premarital sex was going on as long as history has been written down. We might not want to think about our children doing it but it is happening and the only way to stop it is to keep your kids isolated away from everyone. That is not possible so, educating them on sex is the only way. I rather explain about protection than my son becoming a teenage father. You might as well wake up and look at how much children know now any way. I rather give my explanation on things than he gets it from his friend at school. How about you? Would you rather your child get the facts from you and someone that is trained to teach sex-ed or one of their friends that heard it from his older brother on how things work? I would rather have the sex ed teacher and myself.

"but the fact is, it isn't being taught in the homes"

that sucks, but if the government didnt step in and give assistance to those people who dont think about the consiquences of thier behavior, then ill bet the behavior will stop....right now people dont consider the negative consiquences because they have come to expect that somewhere along the line someone will bail them out when thier bad behavior leads to unfortuante outcomes....reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior....remove the rewards and suddenly people think about the consiquences.

"that sucks, but if the government didnt step in and give assistance to those people who dont think about the consiquences of thier behavior, then ill bet the behavior will stop...."

That would be a losing bet. We know this from experience. Back in the day the govt didn't step in and it became a problem. Conservatives put their head in the sand and it got worse. That's why the progressives stepped in and did something about it. Progress has been made by the actions of progressives.

Wait! I thought planned parenthood was mainly for abortions. Isn't that like 90% of what they do?

You have mental problems. Look up "paranoid delusions", quickly.

...and they shouldn't be taught to add or read either.

After all who needs science?

In case you didn't know, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! WE as a mutually cooperative society decided that WE ARE going to educate our kids the best we can. Unfortunately, people like you fight us every step of the way. We want progress. We want a better future FOR EVERYONE and not just ourselves.

If you don't like it, go move to Saudi Arabia where you have your prayer in school and women can't drive or be seen in public without wearing a bee keeper outfit.

"You have mental problems. Look up "paranoid delusions", quickly."

toby while you were looking up "paranoid delusions" so that you could impress mr jones with your newly found knowledge you should have looked up "denial" too...the public schools are sub-standard in every way possible...i think ethieopa has better schools....what makes you think they will teach sex any better than they teach anything else?

"the public schools are sub-standard in every way possible"

That's because republicans keep defunding the schools when they were already underfunded to begin with.

You have mental problems. Look up "paranoid delusions", quickly.

You may be interested to know that one HS in the Bronx I am familliar with happened to be home to a great many young lesbians. And had FAR fewer pregnancy rates than most others. So, who cares? At least they stayed in school, and did not go on welfare to support unwanted babies.

Toby Brainless....

"You Can't Handle The Truth"........!!!!

And as for seperate schools.... I,m all for it !!

And as for seperate schools.... I,m all for it !!

Of course you are. Maybe we could also sew a rainbow patch on their cloths and isolate them in a ghetto somewhere...

"You Can't Handle The Truth"........!!!!

Quoting a movie to make your comment seem more sincere, Nice.

To be honest i think it should be taught at some point. Later in school perhaps but if they do start teaching it early it does have the potential to stop (or at least help stop) the huge ammount of anti gay bullying (age appropriate lessons though).

can't really trash the gays in this situation....gay teens tend to have a lot fewer unplanned pregnancies...just saying. your bigotry is glaring.

"gay teens tend to have a lot fewer unplanned pregnancies"

and dramatically higher STD HIV rates (mostly males) regardless of any sex eduacation...just saying.

A lot fewer unplanned pregnancies for gay teens? Shouldn't there be NONE theoretically? LOL Sorry, this isn't an issue given to humor, but the irony just struck me here.

i tend to be overly sarcastic under most circumstances, regardless of the seriousness of the issue.

and guess what happens when you remove the stigma from being gay and train young people to be sexually responsible instead of sexually ignorant? hiv rates drop. precipitously. there is no wisdom or justice in keeping someone ignorant simply because you don't like that they are gay.

HA! I love your comment. I actually sincerely hope they teach them about masturbation.

I went to a chinese restaurant and my fortune cooky read " Your first love and your last love will always be self love"

I had to think, do they know me?

"Don't knock masturbation, it's sex with someone I love ." - Woody Allen

You obviously have no clue about education or educators. If you want to complain about minimum wage jobs then get educated about the problems with our capitalist system that creates an army of wage slaves.

I hate when people like you want to put blame for the failing education system on teachers, but maybe I'm biased, because my sister is attempting to teach these little brats right now.

If only you could hear the stories I have from her....Today's child is a different breed. You can't counteract all the BS that is fed to them daily from TV, rap music, media and you definitely can't change the homelife they have. Today's kids aren't interested in spelling, it makes text messages too long. They don't need arithmatic, there is a calculator for that. These kids can't even read a clock with hands and a dial! LOL And who reads these days? Books are becoming extinct while video games and porn are both multi-billion dollar industries. Soooo, then parents want to come in and harrass a teacher when little Billy makes an F on his report card!? These kids have no accountability and are taught that from parents. Look to yourselves and you might find that the blame falls real close to home....

But, as long as they are pullin bitches like 'Lil Wayne taught them, then all is cool, right?

Because who needs science?

How is sexuality demonized?

Even Taco Bell commercials have some stupid sexual message, now.

I would argue the opposite, promiscuity is glorified in this day and age.

i agree vanessa,...i think there is too much sex everywhere....demonized?...hardly.

I agree with you. My sex education started in 5th grade and continued only until 8th grade. So I believe that helped me a lot to understand things better about sexand the crazy diseases that are out there.