Progressive education replaces religion with polymorphous sexuality

0
(GlobalStock / Getty Images)

The priorities of modern educators are clear – and backward.

NOTearly two centuries ago, the great French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America that religion was the “first” of the political institutions in this country. By this he meant that widespread, but tolerant and non-coercive religious observance formed the basis of American mores, which in turn were the prerequisite for the responsible exercise of self-government. Recognizing the beneficial effect of religion on mores, even intelligent atheists viewed the encouragement of religion as serving the long-term interests of the country, and therefore their own interests. In this, Tocqueville echoed the observation made by George Washington in his farewell speech, that moral behavior, among most citizens, presupposed religious beliefs, which should therefore be encouraged by the government ( for example, through periodic proclamations of thanksgiving to God for our bounty).

For most of American history, there was general agreement with the sentiments of Tocqueville and Washington. As recently as 1952, left-wing Libertarian Supreme Court Judge William O. Douglas, speaking for a 7-2 majority in the case of Zorach vs. Clauson, which upheld the constitutionality of a “free time” program allowing public school students to be exempted from classes at the request of their parents in order to receive religious instruction in their respective places of worship, observed that ” we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities in adjusting the calendar of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions “while respecting the” religious nature “of the people.

This attitude would change over the following decades, both in terms of judicial decisions and “elite” intellectual opinion. The public display of the Ten Commandments outside a courthouse has been found to be contrary to the establishment clauses of the Constitution. In Lee vs. Weisman (1992), the Court, by a 5-4 majority, ruled that the First Amendment outlawed a non-denominational blessing upon graduating from Rhode Island college, issued by rotating clergy from different sects, on the grounds that simply being under social pressure to defend the blessing could cause a graduate to violate her conscience, again constituting a unconstitutional establishment. (The summons given in early 1989 that prompted the trial, given by a rabbi, thanked God “for the heritage of America where diversity is celebrated and the rights of minorities are protected,” while his blessing called for God’s blessing on the school staff, while urging everyone present “to do righteousness, to love mercy, to walk humbly.”)

As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent, the Court thus “devastated” “a tradition[aussivieuxquelescérémoniesderemisedesdiplômesdesécolespubliqueselles-mêmesetcelafaitpartied’unetraditionaméricaineencoreplusanciennedeprièrenonsectairelorsdescélébrationspubliquesengénéral»descérémoniesenharmonieavecl’appelàDieudanslaDéclarationd’indépendanceaveclepremierdiscoursinauguraldeWashingtonetaveclacoutumed’ouvrirlespropressessionsdelaCouravecl’invocation«QueDieusauvelesÉtats-Unisetcettehonorablecour”

Depuis 1976, une organisation à but non lucratif, la “Freedom from Religion Foundation” (FFRF), comptant 32 000 membres, a travaillé sans relâche pour étendre la protection du peuple américain contre toute indication d’encouragement public à la religion. Dans l’une de ses victoires les plus récentes, la FFRA a incité le gouvernement d’Ashburnham, Mass., à retirer du terrain de jeu de sa bibliothèque publique « un jeu tournant » décrivant l’histoire de l’arche de Noé, qu’un porte-parole de la Fondation a qualifiée d’histoire « vengeresse ». , dont le placement visait les « jeunes enfants » qu’il a trouvé particulièrement « gênant ». « Des parents éclairés aujourd’hui », a observé le représentant, considèrent l’histoire du Déluge comme « barbare » – d’autant plus que « de nombreux Américains croient qu’elle est littéralement vraie ».

Mais alors même que la FFRF et des membres sympathiques de la magistrature s’efforcent de protéger les jeunes contre les intimations dangereuses du dogme religieux, le soutien s’est accru pour une autre forme d’« éducation » publique censée promouvoir leur bien-être : la soi-disant éducation sexuelle complète. . Annoncé comme nécessaire pour lutter contre la propagation des maladies sexuellement transmissibles et des grossesses non désirées chez les adolescentes, le mouvement est promu par des institutions aussi importantes que les Centers for Disease Control, Planned Parenthood et l’Organisation mondiale de la santé.

« RRR : droits, respect et responsabilité » ou 3R, est un programme rédigé par deux anciens employés de Planned Parenthood et disponible auprès de Advocates for Youth. Le programme « d’éducation sexuelle complète » vient d’être adopté par le comité scolaire de Worcester, dans le Massachusetts. Un résumé du programme, fourni par le groupe à but non lucratif Family Watch International, indique que la portée et l’intention sous-jacente de ce que l’on appelle Les programmes d’éducation s’étendent bien au-delà de ces objectifs. Au lieu de cela, courir tout au long du programme est un programme pour remettre en question les normes de genre «traditionnelles». Il encourage les enfants de dix ou onze ans, entrant dans la puberté (à un moment où les sentiments d’ambivalence sont normaux), à reconsidérer si leur sexe « réel » est différent de celui qui leur a été (biologiquement) « assigné » à la naissance ; en septième année, les élèves sont informés de leur « droit d’exprimer leur genre comme cela a le plus de sens pour eux ».

Dans le cadre de cette leçon, les élèves sont chargés d’essayer d’expliquer à un visiteur extraterrestre hypothétique « ce qu’un « garçon » et une « fille » utilisent des stéréotypes courants sur le genre. » En neuvième année, poursuivant le thème de l’arbitraire des « assignations » de genre, ils sont invités à considérer la situation de quelqu’un qui rejette le genre féminin assigné à la naissance :

Vous détestez toutes les cases dans lesquelles la société met les gens et vous identifiez comme genderqueer. Vous travaillez dur pour avoir une apparence et un style non conformes au genre. Vous aimez le genre et vous vous sentez comme avec Sydney [another student with whom you are invited to role-play] you’ve finally met someone who truly understands you.

As the previous excerpts show, few of these scenarios have anything to do with the stated goals of implementing a sex education program: preventing pregnancy or STDs. Instead, the goal is to encourage students to rethink their gender identification and sexual orientation, question traditional sources of moral authority, and view sexual activity, starting in grade 10, as a “right” free from parental interference. The curriculum is also not consistent, even in its supposed support for students’ own choices: in the seventh grade curriculum, students are to be guided through what is described as a “forced choice activity assessing their opinions on homophobia in their schools ”, allowing them to“ be the change ”.

But of course, even in these “enlightened” times, one cannot (yet) expect public school curricula to keep pace with the more outrageous teaching offered in private schools such as the Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School in Manhattan, which last May added to the program “a fourth R, “Raunch”, as indicated in the New York Post. Juniors from the $ 47,000-a-year school showed up to a ‘health and sexuality’ workshop, expecting, as one student explained, that it would simply be ‘ condoms or birth control ”. Instead, they were forced to attend “something called ‘Pornography Education: An Intersectional Focus on Mainstream Porn,” taught by the Dalton School’s Director of Health and Wellness, another elite preparatory school. The slide show and lecture included lessons on how pornography supports ‘male vulnerabilities’; statistics supposed to show that “heterosexual women have far fewer orgasms than homosexual men or women”; and illustration of various porn genres such as “incest-themed”, consensual or “vanilla”, “barely legal” and “kink and BDSM” (including “waterboard electro” torture porn).

Several years ago, astute social critic Mary Ebersadt noted a striking reversal in social attitudes regarding food and sex between the 1950s and today. In the 1950s, Americans tended to be far from picky about the food they ate (eg, TV dinners), while being much more picky about who and under what circumstances they had sex. . Now, she observed, popular attitudes, at least among the enlightened, have been reversed: there are few restrictions on acceptable sexual practices and partners, even as Americans are becoming increasingly picky about their diet. (organic, vegan, local). A similar reversal, it seems, has occurred in our attitudes towards the moral education of our youth, and towards the general standards imposed on citizens in general, with regard to religious and sexual matters. On the one hand, the nature of religious freedom has been reinterpreted, shifting from protection against coercion to protecting vulnerable young people (and adults) against any public manifestation of support for religion, lest they fall apart. feel “offended” or “pressured”.

At the same time, not only have general sexual attitudes become liberalized in recent decades; a large body of “experts” would like to take charge transform children’s views on sexuality and “gender”, with little input or active consent from their parents. The Telegram and Worcester Gazette noted that at the public school committee meeting where the 3Rs curriculum was adopted, roughly equal numbers of citizens spoke out on either side of the issue, with opponents including a significant number of members racial and ethnic minorities as well as members of the clergy. But the committee’s vote simply ignored any objections from parents protesting that public schools had no right to engage in efforts to transform their children’s sexual practices or gender “identities” into the world. name of “tolerance”. A majority of the school committee simply dismissed these concerns.

Maybe Tocqueville, Washington, and Douglas were on to something. Who would you rather have to oversee the moral development of our children: parents, clergy and statesmen who value the dependence of political freedom on widespread religious belief and traditional morality, or self-proclaimed and progressive “experts” who, as producers of the 3Rs program, rely on “principles of social learning theory” and “social cognitive theory”?


Source link

Share.

Leave A Reply