Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 21
June 19, 1969
NUMBER 8, PAGE 1-3a

Sex Education In Schools

Kenneth Green

A timely and bold discussion of the problem — Editor —

The sex appetite is of God. Jill Renich wrote in her booklet "Developing A Wholesome Sex Attitude In Children," "We must recognize ourselves that our bodies are not evil, but pure and good as God gave them to us. It is when we indulge them to excess or in the wrong ways that sin enters in. A good appetite for food is a healthy thing, but gluttony is sin. It is no sin to have money, but the LOVE of it is sin. It is not sin to get a good night's sleep, but laziness is sin. Just so, the drive toward sexual fulfillment is good and God-given, but fornication is sin."

The Bible speaks very plainly on the purity of marital love and just as plainly against all perversions of God's plan be they pre-marital, adulterous, or homosexual in nature. (i.e. Heb. 13:4; I Cor. 6: 9-7: 5)

Sex education for schools is now being pushed all across our nation. Perhaps nothing has stirred the apathy of American citizens as this new program has. I am strongly opposed to the type program that is being proposed, and, I feel, for adequate reason. It has been my observation that most individuals who see nothing wrong with it, understand neither the type program they are endorsing nor the nature of opposition.

The Sex Information and Educational Council of the United States (S. I. E. C. U. S.) is the most influential organization promoting sex education in schools. A glance at the backgrounds of certain SIECUS board members should go far in revealing the kind of information they want to see incorporated into elementary and high school curriculums.

Until very recently, Dr. Isadore Rubin was treasurer of SIECUS. Officers and board members are rotated periodically, probably for diversionary purposes. Dr. Rubin was identified under oath as having been a member of the Communist Party. (Congregational Record, June 26, 1968, p. E 5850) On Sept. 8, 1952, when asked about his Communist Party membership before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, Rubin took the fifth amendment. He was fired from his position as a teacher in the New York City school system because of his connections with the Communist Party. Currently, he is the editor of Sexology, a magazine which condones homosexuality, nudity, sex without marriage, trial marriages, wife swapping (swinging, they call it), sex change operations, prostitution, transvestism, sexual relations between humans and animals, etc.

Dr. Mary Calderone is the Executive Director of SIECUS. She does not seek to conceal her philosophy of sex. She told 320 boys at Blair Academy in New Jersey, "What is sex for? It's for fun...for wonderful sensation."

When asked by a student her opinion of "premarital sex relations among teenagers," she replied, "What's yours? Nobody from on high (referring to God) determines this. You determine it. I don't believe the old 'Thou shalt not's apply anymore." (Look, March 8, 1966)

Dr. Lester Kirkendall is a colleague of Dr. Rubin, serving as "Family Guidance Editor" of Sexology magazine. He has written a number of, booklets in a series called "Better Living Pamphlets," which are being used in many high schools. This man who proposes to tell our young people how to live better says, "...it (Sexology magazine) is currently being revised, with a different cover and titles, so it can be used in the schools." (Anaheim [California] Bulletin, Dec. 19, 1968)

"Society is changing," Kirkendall declared, "and the basis for authority has shifted from the religious to the secular — Doctors and religious people are hung up because they approach sex from the traditional view. That view is no longer the correct one." (Ibid)

"Reverend" William Genne is the secretary of SIECUS. This man is a strong supporter of pro-homosexuality laws. It is his belief that pre-marital sex activity and homosexuality should be accepted by society if the basis for such behavior is "love."

Two people who are not members of SIECUS, but who's writings are highly recommended are "Rev." Joseph F. Fletcher who wrote "Situation Ethics — The New Morality," and Dr. Albert Ellis, who wrote "The Case Against Religion," "The Case For Promiscuity," "Sex Without Guilt," and "The Case for Sexual Liberty." Dr. Ellis said, "If I were stuck on a desert island with my sister, I would almost certainly copulate with her and let the chips fall where they may." (Cavalier, Oct. 1967)

These are some of the people back of the big push to get sex education into all our public schools. It is very unlikely that the stream will rise above its source. I feel that Christians should oppose the teaching of the philosophies of such people in the same way and on the same grounds that we oppose the teaching of biological evolution as established fact. Tampering with the morals is the next natural step after rejecting God as Creator.

Here in Louisville, as well as in schools almost everywhere, books, films, slides and other material are suggested for grades Kindergarten — 3rd which describe in detail human reproduction. Much of the material is such that neither Tant nor the reader would appreciate an attempt to quote from it on these pages.

I do not suggest that the material is not factual, but that it is wholly inappropriate for children of this age. I am not opposed to sex education per se, but I am opposed to elementary grade children being indoctrinated en masse with no consideration for the different backgrounds and needs of individual children. I am opposed to teachers being given the power to fully instruct our children in this delicate subject before questions even arise, in their minds. I have been led to believe that we should answer our children's questions when they ask, and go no further. This can only be accomplished by dealing with individual children.

I am opposed to mixed groups of boys and girls being encouraged to freely and openly discuss any and every aspect of sex activity. Such can only tend to destroy traditional and scriptural barriers of modesty between the sexes.

I am opposed to contraception being taught to high school students. This is being done now in Louisville Public schools. It can only encourage pre-marital sex.

The stock argument for the need of sex education in schools is that it will be the answer to the alarming increase in sex-related problems among our young people. The problems are real and no knowledgeable person would deny this. But will sex education truly solve the problem?

Swedish children have been indoctrinated with a similar sex education program for over ten years, Yet, "Most high-school aged Swedes regard premarital sexual relations as natural and acceptable. Swedish conservatives charge that sex education stimulated the new attitudes — Premarital abstinence (is) a religious idea that most youngsters no longer believe." (Look, Nov. 15, 1966)

"Contraceptives are sold from automats on Swedish streets. Since 1959, venereal disease among youngsters has increased catastrophically. Physicians say that gonorrhea and syphilis are more wide-spread in Sweden today than in any other civilized country in the world." (U. S. News and World Report, Feb. 7, 1966)

The same magazine report states that drug addiction has "risen wildly," pornography is flourishing and clubs for homosexuals advertise for new members in newspapers and magazines. There is increased maternity in the 15-18 age group, an increase in alcoholism, and an estimated 5,000 to 30,000 illegal abortions annually, while applications for legal abortions numbered 7,380 in 1967. (U. S. News and World Report, March 17, 1969)

Statistics in Anaheim, California and Washington D. C. where sex education has been in schools for four years, indicate high increases in sex related problems.

No, sex education is not the solution. A return to Bible morality is the only answer to the problem, and one of the principles of sex education programs is, "Don't try to impose moral standards." Since moral standards are what we need, and these shall not be imposed, the program can only add to our problems.

Brethren, pray...and speak out. Parents need to recognize and faithfully fulfill their responsibility of training their children in matters of sex and morality. The sex education program infringes on this responsibility.