[Vision2020] The Failure of Abstinence-Only Sex Education

[Christopher Witmer]

Mr. Gier's post provides an excellent case in point demonstrating EXACTLY
the sort of thing I was talking about in my post critiquing Mr. Campbell's
flawed arguments the other day.

What Mr. Gier advocates is nothing less than the active promotion of an
anti-Christian religious perspective through the public schools. If
government-funded schools implement Mr. Gier's proposals in this area, they
cannot help but violate the rights of Christians by doing so, because the
Bible very clearly teaches that sex outside of marriage is sinful. There is
no way that the Bible's teaching and Mr. Gier's teaching can be reconciled,
unless perhaps Mr. Gier is advocating that kids in their early teens get
married so they can legitimatey engage in sexual relations within the
context of marriage. I strongly doubt that is what he has in mind.

This brings me right back to the argument I was making against Mr. Campbell:
how can public funding of education be called a social good when people are
thereby forced to support exactly the sort of moral content in education
that they oppose with every fiber of their being? This is an extremely
fundamental issue, but one which is simply being ignored. If you absolutely
must have public funding of education at all, the ONLY approach that could
be reconcilable with the Constitution would be a voucher system that allows
each family to educate their children in terms of their own religious
beliefs, without having contrary religious views imposed upon them by the
"one-size-fits-all" approach of the public schools.

There are many other criticisms that I could make of Mr. Gier's arguments,
but I'll just say this: you can't fight something with nothing. In other
words, you can't fight the positive temptation to engage in sex with a
simple prohibition against it. Mr. Gier is probably correct as far as that
goes. But the biblical approach is very different from that, and it is much
more successful. The biblical approach focuses first and foremost on the
positive loving relationship that the Christian child enjoys with God. This
provides the context within which all human relationships are viewed. Our
love for other people and our love for God cannot be separated. For example,
if we love someone else we seek that person's blessing by encouraging that
person to enter into and to remain faithful to a healthy, loving
relationship with God, which of course includes obeying God's commandments
to keep sexual relations within the context of marriage. Also, the Christian
child is taught to be so committed to his or her future marriage partner
that he or she saves himself or herself exclusively for that person. So the
Christian teen's abstinence is not a case of attempting to fight something
with nothing; rather, the Christian teen's abstinence is a positive
expression of love toward God, love toward one's future marriage partner,
and love towards one's self. When approached in this way, so-called
"abstinence-only sex education" works very well indeed. But, here is the
problem: how can we in good conscience tax the entire populace to promote a
distinctly Christian view of sexual morality in the government-funded
schools? I know this moral perspective is true, and I know it works when
implemented in faith. But I certainly don't want to force people who
strongly disagree with my Christian beliefs to finance the "Christian"
education of the entire school-age populace, any more than I want Christians
to be forced to pay for the indoctrination of of the entire school-aged
population in terms of some anti-Christian dogma. In this way, we can see
that public funding of education is not a social good at all. Rather, it is
inimical to the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and should be
stopped. Education should be under the authority of the Family, not under
the authority of the State.

-- Chris