According to ABC News, Senator and presidential hopeful Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”
Plan Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger once wrote: “More children to the fit, less to the unfit: that is the chief issue of birth control.” Obama has supported Sanger’s dream for many years and his recent request for sex education is only a sure sign of greater support in the future. I realize he is not endorsing sex videos for toddlers, nevertheless, by affirming such, he is condoning, or at least, encouraging the idea that pre-marital sex is to be expected. Speaking of his own family he writes:
I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity,” Obama continued. “Iíve got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual.
Notice carefully that he does not condemn sexual interaction for young people, rather he states that he respects their opinion if they choose to wait until marriage. ((Here I am assuming this is his meaning)) He further notes that his own daughters will be taught that sex is not something casual. By casual, I assume he means it is not to be taken lightly. But if sex is practiced outside its intended meaning, then it has become casual and it has turned its intended meaning upside down.
The travesty of such an approach is that for these candidates children will not be able to live healthy and robust lives before their Creator. They will wonder from their early days about sexual experimentation, which may consequently lead to early sex and possible pregnancy for many. It is true that curiosity leads to practice.
One reader commented that of all the things that could be taught to children, sex education is the most foolish. If Obama believes this will decrease pregnancy rates then he is blind. Children are to be taught by their parents, not by any public educators about the morality or immorality of sex.
What must be done?
a) What Obama misses entirely (this is expected in light of his pagan worldview) is that the indoctrination of children begins in the home, not at school. Hence, his reasoning, whatever it may be ((In this case perhaps one is to dispel myths about where babies come from)) is bound to failure.
b) Christian parents have no other alternative but to pull their children out of public education. Public education has been doomed to failure from its inception. It is both unbiblical ((Deuteronomy 6)) and finds no root in the Constitution.
c) Parents aware of the immense immorality of public education are compelled to share with other parents (Christians or not) according to I Corinthians 16:14 in a spirit of love. Unbelieving parents may dismiss your concerns outright, nevertheless, it is a worthy cause to instruct them on the harm this will cause on their children.
d) Though unbelieving parents may reject your presuppositions as Christians, there are other ways of making your point clear than through Biblical data. ((Certainly, the Biblical data compels us to instruct others and frames our thinking as Biblical Christians, nevertheless, the methods used may vary. Gary North once said that if you would like to see liberals fear, remove your children from public education)) John Stossel’s series: “Stupid in America” may serve as an excellent introduction to the uninformed parent.
e) Finally, however the approach may take place, the solution is always a Biblical one: The regeneration of the heart and of the mind. Christian parents are to recognize that children are a gift from the Lord and showing compassion to them is to teach them in God’s laws.
The church has for too long allowed the world to set the standards of education, it is time for reconstruction in this important area. As Gary Demar has expressed: “Whoever controls the schools, rules the world.”