Textbook or sexbook? Sex education could backfire

If the Education Ministry is so adamant in insisting that the offensive “pornographic” science textbook is okay for your child, you don’t have to guess the kind of perversion that will constitute its sex education programme ... Expect greater sex horrors in schools.

The latest news is that there will be sex education in our schools come September. This is being introduced, we are told, in order to assist in solving the raging sex-related problems among our schools’ population.

There seems to be a considerable degree of optimism coming from certain persons and groups about this new initiative. However, I must admit that this is not so in my case, and most, if not all, Pentecostals. In fact, as it now stands, it appears that sex education would make matters worse. Sex education is a very serious and sensitive matter. If it must be successful, there has to be very strict guidelines in terms of spiritual and moral values. This brings to the fore the five big questions:
• Who will determine the contents of the programme?
• What will be the contents of the programme?
• Will the sanctity of sex receive high emphasis?
• Who will be the teachers involved?
• Will the teachers receive the specific appropriate training?

In various parts of the world, sex education has been a horror story because of the sheer perversion which is accepted as appropriate for the children. In our case, the most frightening thing is that our education system is already showing definite signs of being sold on the worst. Effectively, the sex education is already on stream, with its first lesson coming from a science textbook, recommended by the Ministry of Education for (believe it or not) Form One students. This book which has greatly appalled principals of denominational schools (including the Miracle Ministries Pentecostal High School) contains a pornographic-type, full-size, colour illustration of a man and a woman actually having sex — with all organs exposed — and “raw” notes, giving descriptive details of the act.

Despite the uproar among principals (who deserve to be highly applauded) the Ministry of Education remains adamant — the graphic sex text stays on the recommended book list for Form One students. The Ministry said that the Textbook Committee was “impressed with the editorial quality” of the book, so it was listed as an option. The Ministry added that while one of the illustrations in the book may create a measure of controversy, the Committee found the text could not be faulted on sound scientific principles. The book “also aims to stimulate and motivate people by relating science to real life,” said the Ministry release. If this is the kind of reasoning which will be the determining criteria for the sex education textbooks and/or programmes for our nation’s chidlren, then we are in big, big trouble! Things will grow increasingly worse and our vulnerable adolescent minds would be more greatly confused and contaminated. Expect greater sex horrors in school.

Look at the attitude of the Textbook Committee. The extremely critical matter of moral, spiritual and ethical values is of no concern to these textbook “experts.” Isn’t recommending this book tantamount to endorsing and legitimising pornography in schools? Will a child now caught in school with similar material from a porn magazine be penalised? Won’t the porn be only a matter of dealing with “real life” material? As horrifying as this may appear, this is exactly where the so-called scientific and real life education philosophy is taking our children ... and it’s only the tip of the iceberg. If one offensive graphic sex illustration is no problem for the Education Ministry, then the child in possession of one graphic pornographic picture in class or one “graphic” joint of marijuana, or a “graphic” rock of cocaine or one “graphic” bottle of rum, should be instantly exonerated. Are we recommending textbooks to our students or is it sexbooks? Do we need a Textbook Committee or Sexbook Committee?

The fact of the matter is that some people who are at the helm of our education system appear to have very little or no understanding of what constitutes true moral and spiritual character, especially as it relates to sexuality. Their value system seems warped and distorted. The giddy-headed Miki-Grant condom and literature distribution foolishness has perhaps gotten somebody nervous so there is a mad, emotional rush to introduce “sex education” in schools, which may mean merely formalising the silly and dangerous “Miki Model.” The truth is, school children are already receiving loathsome sex education from television, the internet, pornography, street talk, their peers and a number of other polluted sources. To now have an exercise in the classroom which essentially serves to formally endorse and reinforce the filth by which they are already being damaged, could only make matters worse.

We must commend the Prime Minister and the Minister of Education for making it clear that there must be no condoms in schools. But there is a lot worse which can be allowed in the school if we don’t have sound moral and spiritual guidelines. The Church must play a leading role in any sex education programme for schools, if it must be truly successful. Actually, the real trouble with our schools is not lack of sex education per se, but the need for much clearer and stronger emphasis on solid moral and spiritual values.