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.

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.