The impact of ignorance to sex education

 

John McCain

There seems to be no greater reason to encourage sex education in schools than this, John McCain’s response to whether or not he thought that contraceptives helped to stop the spread of HIV.

Posed with this very question, according to The Age, McCain eloquently responded: “You’ve stumped me”. He then admitted that he has never looked in to issues of sexually transmitted disease before and did not support government spending on contraception.

The man is 72 years-old and is running for Presidency of the United States, yet he does not know basic information about the benefits of contraceptive. His Vice-President candidate Sarah Palin opposes funding sex-education programs in schools and favours abstinence-only education programs where students are told to be sexually abstinent until marriage and are not taught about contraceptives.

Aside from making Palin seem ignorant and hypocritical on this issue, the announcement that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, and even more controversially, pregnant out of wedlock, seems to highlight just how important sex-education in the school system is. Coming from a Christian family it is assumable that this pregnancy was not planned for, as we know that in following this religion, abstinence is expected from all unmarried people. Maybe, just maybe, if her daughter was provided with the necessary information about being sexual activity, the pregnancy could have been prevented.

Addressing a Planned Parenthood conference on the issue of sexual education in schools, McCain’s Democratic opposition for the Presidency, Barack Obama, summed up my response to this issue perfectly:  ”For us to leave them [students] in ignorance is potentially inciting them to illness, pregnancy, poverty and in some cases death.” Below is his full address to the assemblage.

 

Death, as dramatic as it may seem, is what every child without basic information on issues such as HIV and AIDs may face. If we are to protect ourselves from these epidemics we will need a lot more sense than that of John McCain. This sense comes from sexual education.

It does not suffice merely to pretend that teen pregnancy will not happen. Nor is it moral to chastise a minor in the name of the lord if it does occur. There are two types of sexual education taught in the United States: comprehensive, which encourages abstinence but still teaches about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and infections as a result of sexual activity; and abstinence only, as I previously mentioned.  Unsurprisingly, no published studies to date have found significant abstinence-only program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse.

In Australia, thankfully, the Government recognises that primary school-aged children need information about the biological processes of sex and reproduction to prepare them for what will become an important part of their adult life. This education can promote responsible sexual behaviour, and may assist in preventing sexual problems. More importantly, it can educate children about the importance of consensual sex.

Australian’s are lucky enough to be provided with this invaluable sexual education in schools from an early age. Unfortunately, in America, conservatives such as McCain and Palin cannot recognise just how much of a difference sexual education can make to a persons attitude toward sex. Rather than acknowledge that children will have sex whether or not they are taught about it, they are unwittingly encouraging ignorance and are attempting to deny the youth of America access an education they deserve. And who knows, maybe if McCain had bothered to get an education he may have been able to avoid looking like such a fool.

The promise of the ‘holy’ month.

A mass prayer

As the first day of spring rolled in, promising sunshine and new beginnings, so to did the first day of the holy Islamic month of Ramadan. During the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, Muslims from all nations unify in a period of spiritual reflection. Fasting takes place from sunrise to sunset, with abstinence from food and drink. In the evenings, the followers engage in prayer, reading from the Qu’ran, their holy script. Ramadan is a time to purify the soul, refocus attention on God and practice self-sacrifice, and to re-evaluate life in light of Islamic guidance.
I am no advocate for religion, I must admit. But, after reading OhmyNews’ article ‘Welcome Ramadan: Truce Announced in Pakistan’, my faith in faith was lifted. Pakistan is said to have suspended all military operations against local Talibans for the month of Ramadan. The government has encouraged civilians to return to their homes and celebrate the holy month with clarity in this time of total peace and political calm.

There have also been calls for peace in Sudan. According to the Sudanese Tribune, the peacekeeping mission in Darfur UNIMID has called on Sudanese parties to declare a truce for the occasion of Ramadan. However, in both Sudan and Pakistan, there is no guarantee that these ceasefires will take effect, or that any peace at all will be achieved. Only time will tell in this instance.
This mere call for peace, at least, elicits a sense of hope. What needs to be called in to question here though, is that if the Islam religion so strictly acknowledges the worship of God and spiritual purification during Ramadan, then why not for the remaining months of the year? Why cleans the soul, only to tarnish it again with the ramifications of war?
The internal wars (and I stress the plural) occurring in the middle-east and Africa are more complicated than I could even begin to comprehend myself, let alone try to explain it to anybody else. I am the first to admit that I understand very little about the many aspects of the conflicts or even the intricacies of Ramadan and the Islamic religion.
However, what I will say on the issue is this: faith, in many forms, plays a large role in many peoples lives around the world. But it seems to me that while religious followers are in constant search of gratification and forgiveness from their God, their actions (and I stress that I do not apply this solely to Islamic people, or any specific religions or nations for that matter) during times of war and conflict only contribute to the list of actions for which they must seek forgiveness.
If I were a believer in religion I would pray for peace for the nations affected by violent conflict. But because I am not, I can only hope that those who are believers work toward peace for the long term, and not just in the ‘holy’ hours, days, or months of their religious calendars.

Conservative students beware…

“Unfortunately, some teachers are not subtle in expressing their Left-wing bias, being quite militant in the expression of their views and intolerant of dissent… evidence of blatant bias is far from rare in the school system.”

 

A 'militant' left-wing teacher?

 

 

 

This is an extract from Dr Mark Lopez’s article that was published in The Australian. It is a vehement evaluation of the so-called left-wing political bias of teachers in the Australian education system.  As a humanities tutor himself, it is easy to see his political bias. However, it is hard to believe that his students would not be exposed to his less-than-subtle right-wing stance. His argument stipulates that the teachers of the children of the future are liberal fanatics and that any student who possesses an opposing conservative view does not stand a chance at achieving academically.

A Federal inquiry into academic freedom is underway, and according to The Age, Dr Lopez is not alone in his political bias beliefs regarding the education system. In 2006, acting Education Minister Julie Bishop apparently identified “left-wing ideologues…straight from Chairman Mao”. And in his submission to the inquiry, Kevin Donnelly – a conservative education consultant – suggests that students leave school “culturally illiterate and ethically challenged”, all thanks to pesky liberal repression.  

Dr Lopez has some suggestions to fix this issue of bias. One of which is to cut the VCE text list from 30 to 20, with 10 texts to be selected by the ‘left’, and 10 by the ‘non-left’. What a great idea. Let us reduce the range of literature, and let us hamper diversity. And better yet, why don’t we declare the remaining texts ‘left’ or ‘right’. After all, things really are black and white aren’t they? There is no grey space, no room for students to have convictions on both sides of the political spectrum. And of course, all literature has an identifiable political agenda, doesn’t it?

Students everywhere, prepare to be brainwashed by your left-wing extremist teachers and subversive literature.

Sure, teachers will most probably have their own political beliefs. But, I find it hard to believe that any educator who truly understands ‘education’ will unwittingly crucify a student who expresses an opinion that differs to their own beliefs. In fact, in my own experience, all of my teachers have encouraged free thought and expression, with one rule only: back up your argument. Unfortunately for Dr Lopez can’t seem to do this.

If the political bias truly does exist in the education system, then I doubt it is anywhere near the level that Dr Lopez will have us believe. However, I suspect that he may be a tutor to avoid if political bias is not your major. Especially if this is one of his convictions:

 “Like the characters Winston Smith and Julia in George Orwell’s classic anti-totalitarian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, students with non-Left views need to learn to outwardly conform to inwardly remain free.”

Hm, okay, does this mean you’ve already claimed this text then Mark?

Flint, say ‘hello’ to your new sherriff… Joan Rivers.

Criminal or casual?

Fear not citizens of Flint, your streets are now safe. There are no low-slung pants baring boxered bottoms to harm you any longer. Forget about the exceedingly high rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault and robbery in yours, one of America’s most dangerous cities. These can be addressed after the more serious, attire related, issues are tackled.

David Dicks, the new police chief of Flint, Michigan has imposed a ban on low-riding pants. He deems donning this attire to be ‘immoral self expression’ . Failure to adhere to the ban may result in a fine, full-body search or arrest. Admittedly, the thought of wearing pants below your behind is quite ridiculous. But, the idea that what people choose to wear on a daily basis can be governed by the State blatantly contradicts the Star-Spangled Banner ‘land of the free’ ideology.

Flint is not the first town, nor Michigan the first state in America whose leaders have attempted to impose these dress codes on their people. Louisiana, Georgia, Missouri, Virginia and Atlanta (mostly states with a high percentage of African-American people) have each endeavored to rid the streets of the baggy pant trend. Why, this dress-code dilemma has become so relevant that even Dr Phil has weighed in on the issue.

Unsurprisingly, most media commentary on the pants ban, such as Allan Miller’s Sp!ked-Online article, has generally ridiculed this prohibition of self-expression. The low-pants epidemic may be a crime deserving of the highest punishment, but only in trashy magazines or if it is inflicted by Joan Rivers on the red carpet. If low riding jeans are repressed, then what will follow? Stripes and spots? Fluro? Freedom of speech?

In a town that quite clearly has other criminal issues to focus on, why waste police resources hindering a freedom ( in a ‘free country’ ) that preceding generations have fought so hard for?

Religion in Politics: exercise or exorcise?

Bobby Jindal

Before he quashed the guesswork about the future of his political career, Bobby Jindal caused a blip in the Republican’s radar in the lead-up to the American presidential election. He has highlighted how the Church can influence affairs involving the State and the People, which begs the question: what role does religion really play in politics?

As John McCain is yet to choose his vice-president running mate for the election, speculation in The New York Times about who the chosen one might be pointed – albeit briefly – toward Jindal. At 37 years-of-age (which is near infancy in political years), this Indian-American is the current governor of Louisiana and has been elected as a member of the U.S House of Representatives. Born and raised a Hindu, he has since converted to Christianity, the religion with the strongest following in the States. He is a man with great potential you might say.

But alas, in late July Jindal announced that he would not be running for vice-president of the Republican Party. Although, this was not before his 1994 essay detailing the events of an exorcism of his friend – which he participated in – surfaced for public scrutiny. The controversy of this essay lies with Christian law allowing only bonafied exorcists to perform the ritual, and only in the most dire circumstances.

His actions may have broken holy decree over a decade ago, but I am inclined to think that whatever his religious beliefs and actions are and may have been, his political beliefs should be the decider of his suitability to lead such a powerful Western country. Some responses to his essay give thanks to him for his honestly and willingness to share the details of the ritual with the public. Other responses have been rather adverse. This is one of the latter…

Whether or not his essay, and the public’s vehement response to it, lead to Jindal’s renouncing of the VP speculation, David Corn’s suggestion on Mother Jones that he should be required to openly discuss his religious beliefs and practices with the general public poses the question: to what extent can a public figure keep something sacred….well, sacred? And just how much can these sacred beliefs influence a politician’s popularity?

Religion may provide hope and sanctity to those who believe – much like a good policy for a party member in an election battle. But, I suggest the relationship between the two should remain as such: the holy as the water and the politics as the oil. This way they can meet in the same bottle of ideology, but fully never combine to corrupt the status quo.