Good, Bad, or Indifferent

In Friday's addition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, freelance writer Dana Kelley put his two cents' worth into the the continuing debate in northwest Arkansas going on between the Fayetteville school district and one particular lady who is struggling to keep what she considers to be "smut" out of the school library. Weighing in on the debate were some students from the school who decried "censorship efforts" and attacks on our "freedom of choice, on which this nation was founded".

Mr. Kelley writes, "If that poor student meant that the United States of America was founded on public school libraries containing books like "Doing It", then he or she definitely needs to spend more time at Fayetteville High School's library - in the history section. Freedom of choice isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and it wasn't a founding principle at all. It's a beatitude of our secular, relativist times, as is pornography in public schools."

While I agree that we cannot control the types of books and magazines published and marketed, this notion that we need text books to teach young children how to "do it" is beyond anything reasonable and demands a certain level of censorship, perhaps the type of censorship that this nation employed during WWII when certain information was withheld from the general public. Did the nation not have a "right to know" or a "choice to read" what was being passed around? Not necessarily then or now.

In the first place, there is indeed such a thing as "TMI" . During WWII, the general public would not have had the stomach to endure the truth about the war at any given time and under all circumstances. There were some very ugly moments then as there are in any war at any time. The public, however, did not have a need to know nor did the public have the capacity to comprehend or appreciate the harsh realities of war.

Is this any less true of a high school or junior high school student as it pertains to "how to" books of a sexual nature? How much information can a young person take in at a certain age and truly appreciate the value of that knowledge, especially as it pertains to sex?

Remember also that this blog is dedicated to making the everyday "stuff" the kind of stuff that matters between the Lord and man. Sex is most certainly one topic among that "stuff". My problem with the entire discussion is simply this: there is a time and a place to discuss sex. High school is not one of these places.

I know that many secularists perceive conservative Christians as "narrow minded" when we take this approach to sex. The secular argument is that sex is a natural reality that must be dealt with and explored. Indeed. This "exploration" has led this nation to over 40 million babies being destroyed before drawing their first breath. This "exploration" has led to screwed-up emotions of young people dealing in matters of the heart and soul that they are not yet emotionally equipped to deal with. And another question I have is this: if the "act" is so darn natural, why are there so many books attempting to show us how to do something that should come naturally?

Yes, I had high school biology that covered the fundamentals of how our bodies work and, yes, there was that section dealing with reproduction. There was no mention, however, of how to properly put on a condom. Bananas and rubbers were not standard high school issue. I even had to attend the "boys only" screening of films having to do with venereal disease. YIKES! The difference, however, between what sex education seems to encompass today against what we had to learn back then was not so much instructional as informative.

If we need to focus on anything educational, perhaps we should turn our attention to the young person and his or her notion that "freedom of choice" is a constitutional right. Do I have right to choose to destroy your home because its design displeases me? Do you have a right to choose to infringe upon my rights? I know this is somewhat extreme, but this young person's notion of constitutional concepts is far short of what the US Constitution demands of its citizens.

There is, in my humble opinion, a reason why the Bible is filled with "Thou shalt not ..." statements. The Lord is not denying us any "fun". The writer is acknowledging the harm that is inherent to sinful behavior. The Lord charges us adults with protecting HIS young people. Jesus, in fact, is very explicit about the harm that will come to those who lead little children into temptation and sin: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." "Offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offenses come." Matthew 18:6-7

Giving our young people "TMI" as it pertains to sex ultimately does more harm than good. Suggesting to us that abstinence is not reasonable because "they're gonna do it anyway" insults our intelligence because we are not "sexual" beings; we are "human" beings. There is so much more to us - and to the Lord - than sex. Criminals are going to break the law anyway as well, so why not just teach them how to break the law and get away with it rather than punish them for doing something that seems to come naturally do them?

We as humans possess the ability to reason. Come, then, and "let us reason together". Isaiah 1:18