Over at Townhall, Nathan “the young Jesse Helms” tells us What’s really scary this Halloween: teaching kids about sex when we could be using the money to put them in work camps instead,
A survey cited by National Public Radio in 2004 showed that 47 percent of schools teach something dubbed “abstinence-plus.” The theory behind this sexual school of thought is that, while abstinence is best, some students will simply refuse to abstain, so schools should teach kids about condoms and contraception as well. But, at a time when technology is advancing faster than our hands can fly across a computer keyboard, should we really be spending part of the school day teaching kids how to put on condoms? If parents are responsible for ensuring that their children are potty-trained by kindergarten, shouldn’t it be up to parents to make sure their offspring learn about the birds and the bees?
Apparently Nathan thinks it’s the parents’ job to teach their kids about potties and condoms (possibly in one lecture to be delivered on the day before the children start kindergarten), but it’s the public schools’ obligation to teach kids that they’ll go to hell if they have sex before they’re married. Yes, Nathan is a true conservative.
Or consider this: A national poll reported by CBS News two years ago indicated that Americans don’t believe in human evolution. Fifty-five percent said God created humans in their present form, i.e., no apes were involved in the creation of man and woman. And yet, school districts throughout the U.S. continue to waste their precious resources teaching children that man evolved from monkeys. It seems to me that, if a child believes that he or she has an ancestor who’s an ape, he or she is more likely to behave like one.
Yes, this is how we should decide our science curriculum: we should ignore that sciency stuff, and get our facts from public opinion polls (“Where do babies come from? Our survey says: from the cabbage patch”), along with whatever teachings might cause children to behave better (“Class, thunder is God yelling at you for picking your nose”).
Why not spend some of our tax dollars teaching schoolchildren that life really means something—that every child in the womb deserves a chance at life? Let’s face it—if you teach a student that killing an unborn child is acceptable, what’s to prevent that child from growing into a teenager who thinks it’s O.K. to pick up a gun and shoot someone?
Certainly not Nathan’s science classes, which will fail to teach kids that there is any difference between a week-old embryo and their teen-age classmates.
But anyway, I think we can all agree that high school students should neither be gunning down people nor performing abortions.
In the kind of school budget that I’m proposing, we’ve cut out money for condom education, evolution propaganda, liberal indoctrination, and abortion promotion. That leaves quite a bit of money left. And we should be using that money to make schools safer and teenagers more disciplined.
[…]
And finally, let’s devote some money for boot camps for teens. It’s the only way to get some teenagers in shape—and out of prison.
Why not just replace public schools with workhouses, and make the brats earn their keep for a change? This will not only reduce our property taxes and help us compete with third-world nations when it comes to making crap for Wal-Mart, but it will also protect the little dears from having to learn anything which might not accord with Nathan’s world view.
Let’s face it—if you teach a student that killing an unborn child is acceptable, what’s to prevent that child from growing into a teenager who thinks it’s O.K. to pick up a gun and shoot someone?
Good point, Nate. By the same token, if you teach a person that killing an unborn child is *un*acceptable, he’ll never grow up to be someone who thinks it’s OK to pick up a gun and shoot someone.
Left by FlipYrWhig on October 30th, 2006